NSG.ToolSupport

[NSG.ToolSupport]

File

[NSG.ToolSupport]

We’ve compared the 2 documents based on the same EA repo and eaDocX profile but run under different accounts. This resulted in differances in the chapter hierarchy. Can you identify what the source is for these differences? Do you need extra logging info to help us out?

The ZIP file contains the 2 documents as well as a part of the repo in XMI 1.1 format where the document is based on. The repo hierarchy is as followes: Bijsturing Materieel Requirements > Use Case Model BAM > BAM Bijsturing > XMI file.

Kind regards,

[NSG.ToolSupport]

Your answer works indeed, however we do have a couple of remarks on this issue.

• The behaviour has changed between the versions 3.9.3.8 and 3.9.4.4 as reported earlier, because in version 3.9.3.8 the document was generated correctly with these settings while in version 3.9.4.4 it was not. There was another comparable issue with the tables printed for an activity diagram. With the new version more tables were printed than in the previous version and we had to remove the profile for activity to get the same result with the new version.
• The filter we had to remove for the usecase to correct the behaviour is still needed for the activity diagram to print the tables underneath the diagram. Which seems a bit inconsistent.
• New software versions that change the behaviour without us knowing, causing completely unexpected results are taking a lot of time for us to investigate. Changes in software are inevitable but it would help if we as users know what exactly has been changed and first and foremost what the consequences of these changes are for our documents. Currently, installing a new version of EaDocX is a major project risk for us regarding leadtime of generated requirementsdocuments.

[Author]

Posts