You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When reviewing model trees to it was a little bit time consuming to orientate myself around which things I had "grouped" via the containerisation feature.
I wonder if you could consider the following to provide a clue/filterable property on the model tree?
So example - say I was capturing a decomposition of requirements:
MyLevel 0 Requirement (+)
MyLevel 1 Requirement (+-) - which tells me this element is part of a nesting relationship but isnt the root or the final leaf
MyLevel 2 Requirement (-)
The presence of the (+) or (-) or (+-) indicates some "contains" relationship to be aware of and whether I am at the root or a leaf node. The symbols themselves don't matter of course - these seemed useful shorthand.
This would be even more exciting if there was a "jump to" feature on right mouse but I know I can go to the analysis pane anyway for that - but this suggested visual indicator felt like something that could be an extension of the italicisation code ?
Thanks
Steve
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi, thanks for your suggestion but I don't think adding +/- to the Models Tree is the best approach as this would add a lot of noise to the tree when its purpose is about organisation of elements.
You could open the Navigator tab and when you select a concept elsewhere in the UI the Navigator will show you if the selected concept is connected to another.
Ok. I thought that as you italicise already ? Also it was motivated by not having visible object nesting in the explorer tree. Appreciate I could see it another way but what would mean stepping thru explorer tree entries one by one.
Anyway, it was just a usability idea
Steve
Sent from Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
________________________________
From: Phil Beauvoir ***@***.***>
Sent: Saturday, January 4, 2025 12:19:04 PM
To: archimatetool/archi ***@***.***>
Cc: Steve Roberts ***@***.***>; Author ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [archimatetool/archi] [Feature Request] Model Tree to visually indicate either an element if a parent/container or child/contained (Issue #1107)
Hi, thanks for your suggestion but I don't think adding +/- to the Models Tree is the best approach as this would add a lot of noise to the tree when its purpose is about organisation of elements.
You could open the Navigator tab and when you select a concept elsewhere in the UI the Navigator will show you if the selected concept is connected to another.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#1107 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AVTIWF5HYIIYTCWKFCT3FTD2I7GTRAVCNFSM6AAAAABUDFKXEGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDKNZRGI3TCOBQHA>.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>
Description
Enjoying using the tool folks.
When reviewing model trees to it was a little bit time consuming to orientate myself around which things I had "grouped" via the containerisation feature.
I wonder if you could consider the following to provide a clue/filterable property on the model tree?
ParentElementHasChildren (+)
ChildElementIsAlsoParent (+-)
ChildElementIsLeaf (-)
So example - say I was capturing a decomposition of requirements:
MyLevel 0 Requirement (+)
MyLevel 1 Requirement (+-) - which tells me this element is part of a nesting relationship but isnt the root or the final leaf
MyLevel 2 Requirement (-)
The presence of the (+) or (-) or (+-) indicates some "contains" relationship to be aware of and whether I am at the root or a leaf node. The symbols themselves don't matter of course - these seemed useful shorthand.
This would be even more exciting if there was a "jump to" feature on right mouse but I know I can go to the analysis pane anyway for that - but this suggested visual indicator felt like something that could be an extension of the italicisation code ?
Thanks
Steve
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: