![]() |
Telelogic System Architect (steve huntington) | ![]() |
Topic Title: Finding orphans within the encyclopedia. Topic Summary: Would the curious SQL string show me all of the objects no longer used within an Encyclopedia Created On: 4-Dec-2006 04:54 Status: Read Only |
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch |
![]() |
![]()
|
![]() |
|
I'm curious. Excepting default objects, would the curious SQL string show me all of the objects no longer used within an Encyclopedia: |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Symbol records in the entity table are deleted when either the symbol, or the diagram are deleted. They should not be left around.
Or do you mean definitions which defined the symbols? Definitions can exist in the encyclopedia without any relationships. This is perfectly valid. The SQL query you have provided will be indiscriminent of 'Diagrams', 'Symbols' or 'Definitions' - It will simply return anything which has no relationships with anything else. It will most likely return data which you want to KEEP as well. Are you seeing symbols which should have been deleted? ------------------------- Senior Software Developer Telelogic UK Ltd. |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
I'm seeing definitions that have no symbols attached to them. Old definitions where the symbols have been deleted.
Just wondering if at any stage it is worth cleaning them out? |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
I guess you need to decide whether the definition should exist, if there are no symbols which it defines.
So if you decide that all definitions of a certain type, which do not define symbols, can be removed, you could put a macro together to block delete them. I guess an enhancement request could be put in to notify users if the last symbol, which is defined by a definition, is being deleted. It could then ask whether the definition relating to the symbol should also be deleted. Do you think this would be a good idea, or more intrusive than helpful? (reading that back through I noticed that it doesn't scan very well - sorry! hope it makes sense) ------------------------- Senior Software Developer Telelogic UK Ltd. |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
A request for SA System enhancement along those lines would be good, yes. I can run a general SQL macro to do the rest as a job if needs be but it would make a worthy addition to the product so that users can decide whether to remove a definition or not.
I guess I could capture the delete event of a Symbol and decide upon this using a VBA macro, but it is not a major concern yet. Ta for the information. |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
I have logged an enhancement request.
Thanks Ian ------------------------- Senior Software Developer Telelogic UK Ltd. |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Call me nutty, but how 'bout a "delete nonreferenced items" tool for encyclopedia cleanup?
|
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
This would work in the most part, and rules could be setup for items which should not exist on their own. But some items can be non referenced. For example a definition can exist entirely on its own, with no references and still be a valid item. It is still accessible from the explorer (SA Browser) and could still be being used by macros.
One key area that could be improved is when the last symbol referencing a definition is deleted, the user could be prompted to determine the definition's fate. This would be the most appropriate time to make a decision. I have raised an enhancement request. Hopefully it will be considered soon. Thanks Ian ------------------------- Senior Software Developer Telelogic UK Ltd. |
|
![]() |
FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2009 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.