By (M)s, I suspect you mean the classes and associations that appear on the
diagram but have not been loaded, because they belong to another unit that
is not loaded.
Now, this is clutching at straws and I haven't checked it, but you might be
able to do this:
- Get all the ClassViews on the diagram.
- Try to navigaet to their classes.
- If you can't find the corresponding class, it hasn't been loaded.
Alternatively, you might try to see if the class' package has been loaded.
(This works only if there is a corresponding class in the first place.)
These Ms also appear when you have a view element but no corresponding model
element -- i.e. somebody's deleted the model element but the diagrams where
that model element appeared were not updated as their package had not been
loaded at the time of the deletion. The first method should definitely work
for this. I think the check is:
aClass = aClassView.GetClass ' or something like that. I haven't got
Rose on this machine.
IF aClass IS NOT NULL THEN
aClass.DoWhatever
ELSE
' Display the name of the ClassView here as it has no corrsponding
model element
ENDIF
If I remember it right, "IF aClass IS NULL THEN" does not work. Or was it
the other way round? Well, you'll have to experiment.
The model checker at www.rationalrose.com does a pretty good job of checking
stuff like this. Even if it doesn't do everything, it's a good place to
start.
To avoid the problem in the future, you need to be more proactive: you need
to force your modellers to check out all the diagrams a class appears in,
before doing a "delete from model". You might write a script that lists all
the diagrams that a class appears in, for instance. I had a bunch of these
scripts a while ago, but they disappeared in the mists of the last century.
Don't make it too easy for them, though: force them to look at those
diagrams. You could write a script to check all those controlled units out,
delete the class from the model, then check the controlled units back in;
but that makes it too easy to get carried away with pruning jobs.
All this sounds like a drag. Why the hell should you have to have to go
through all these hoops just to delete a lousy class?
Well, when you are deleting classes from a model, you should also be doing
some dependency management. If a class is referenced from another diagram,
there must have been a reason for it -- and if you think there is no good
reason, you better make sure that others agree. We often get very cavalier
with classes on diagrams, whereas we would have thought more than twice
about deleting a hundred lines of code even after some investigation.
With 11,000 classes to manage, I suspect you will not disagree.
Although Rose's controlled units are a clunky way of implementing a
repository, most of the problems come from relaxed dependency management.
When you stop Rose's controlled units from getting in the way, you've
generally got your dependency management spot on.
Good luck.
H�seyin Angay
Karabash Ltd.
www.karabash.co.uk
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ronald W Townsen [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 6:49 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: (ROSE) XMI/MOF support in Rose / XDE
>
>
>
> Perhaps someone can help.
>
> I am working with a large Rose Model (~11,000 objects). I am trying to
> find some automated way to identify Class Diagrams with (M)'s so they can
> be reviewed and updated by the development team.
>
> My main work is using VB Script to manage the model, but I'm flexable.
>
> In checking with the Rational Support group, nothing was found to provide
> this type of feedback information.
>
> Does anyone have an Idea on how this could be done?
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> * Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions.
> * For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support
> *
> * Post or Reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> * Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> * Archive of messages:
> * http://www.rational.com/support/usergroups/rose/rose_forum.jsp
> * Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *
> * To unsubscribe from the list, please send email
> * To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> * Subject: <BLANK>
> * Body: unsubscribe rose_forum
> *************************************************************************
This private and confidential e-mail has been sent to you by Egg.
The Egg group of companies comprises Prudential Banking plc
(registered no. 2999842), Egg Financial Products Ltd (registered
no. 3319027) and Egg Investments Ltd (registered no. 3403963) which
carries out investment business on behalf of Egg and is regulated
by the Financial Services Authority. All members of the Egg group
are registered in England and Wales. Registered offices: 142
Holborn Bars, London EC1N 2NH
If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail and have
received it in error, please notify the sender by replying with
'received in error' as the subject and then delete it from your
mailbox.
************************************************************************
* Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions.
* For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support
*
* Post or Reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Archive of messages:
* http://www.rational.com/support/usergroups/rose/rose_forum.jsp
* Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To unsubscribe from the list, please send email
* To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Subject: <BLANK>
* Body: unsubscribe rose_forum
*************************************************************************
