![]() |
Telelogic DOORS (steve huntington) | ![]() |
new topic :
profile :
search :
help :
dashboard :
calendar :
home
|
||
Latest News:
|
|
Topic Title: Determining shared edit status of a module Topic Summary: Created On: 16-Aug-2006 15:27 Status: Post and Reply |
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch |
![]() |
![]()
|
![]() |
|
We used to have a module set up for sharing and section-locking.
Since then, all objects have been reverted to "Inherit from Parent" thus removing the lockability of the module - I can't remember offhand the reason for this. I now want to re-set up the editable sections and am aware that removing this didn't necessarily fully integrate the module files back into one supersize file. Is there an easy way of finding out what level the sharing was previously set at? |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
//try following as layout dxl
bool b isAccessInherited(obj, b) display b "" |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
But access not being inherited does not in itself mean that the level is lockable, and all objects are now inherited anyway.
|
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
If an object has specific access rights (i.e. not inherited) then it is also a lockable section. Why DOORS was implemented this way I do not know, but that's the way it works.
If you want to find out what the access rights were, then you can look through the baselines to find the objects that were lockable before. I suggest opening each baseline and using Ron's code to get the info. ------------------------- Tony Goodman http://www.smartdxl.com Edited: 17-Aug-2006 at 08:29 by Tony Goodman |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Ah I see, thanks I'll do that.
I'd love to hear the rationale behind that design logic. |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
As a slight aside, I know that you can share-edit a module down to level 4, and obviously will get a degree of performance degradation due to the extra files that DOORS must reconstitute when you open the module, but can anyone suggest a reasonable rule of thumb for the share level I should use, or is it really a finger in the air, suck it and see kind of approach? Edited: 17-Aug-2006 at 11:35 by Alan Gooch |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Telelogic only provide an option to go down to level 4 in the GUI, and I assume that this is by design rather than by accident.
We have our own tool for creating lockable sections that allows the user to select sections individually. Also if you create lockable sections at say level three then it is usually a good idea to also create lockable sections at levels 1 and 2 (i.e. the ancestor sections). Our tool also restricts lockable sections to heading objects, so you don't end up with loads of individual requirements that are lockable because they happen to be at the same level as the section level you selected. If you have a module based on one of the common standards then you will notice that the sections are not evenly distributed as far as depth is concerned which makes creation of lockable sections at a single level inappropriate. I have spoken to Telelogic in the past about this and their advice was to have as few lockable sections as possible to minimise database fragmentation. ------------------------- Tony Goodman http://www.smartdxl.com |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Tony,
Would you mind sharing this tool you have created? I am going to write something like this, but I don't want to reinvent the wheel. Thanks. ------------------------- Craig Forant me@craigforant.com |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
I am afraid I can't share the tool as it is because it is designed for a specific doors schema. Also it is embedded within a much larger collection of DXL and relies heavily on library functions.
However, I do like to share, so I will see what I can come up with stand-alone. Watch this space... ------------------------- Tony Goodman http://www.smartdxl.com |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
I came up with this script last night and it looks like it works. Any feedback would be great!
------------------------- Craig Forant me@craigforant.com Edited: 4-Jul-2007 at 16:36 by Craig Forant |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nice one Craig!
A couple of points: 1. Turn off autodeclare. Louie has posted a script for this somewhere. 2. I think your logic or terminology is back to front on the check boxes? ------------------------- Tony Goodman http://www.smartdxl.com |
|
![]() |
FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2009 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.