i have a repository workspace and i did changes on many components...
...now how can i create change sets for all components?
as you can see above there are three components, which have unresolved changes. so i must create three change sets, one after another... and yes: all components are changed because of one bug.
i find it very hard to create so much change sets with the mouse/context menu - is there a easier way?
A change set is for a given component.
A change set is a repository object that collects a related group of file, folder, and symbolic link modifications within a component.
In your case, that would be 3 simple mouse/content menu click, to quickly create three change sets.
However, each change set can be linked to the same Work Item ("related artifact"), which described your bug.
A nice trick:
select all the Unresolved folders (multiple selection), and use the "Check-in All"
(or Ctrl+Shift+F9)
That will create a new change set for each component.
you can use this button as well:
Related
Here is a simplified example of my problem:
I want to make the edit box 1 or 2 visible, depending on whether a checkbox of box 1 or box 2 is checked. The variables "variableCheckbox1" and "variableCheckbox2" are connected to the respective ceckboxes.
I have written a function as shown in the picture. The function is called from the EditBox 1 ("Enabled"). This is a possible solution for ONE box each.
Does anyone have an idea if there is a more elegant way to do this for a very high number of checkboxes / edit boxes?
A possible solution would be to write a function with a switch case for each variable in my model, called from each box. A very inelegant solution would be to make a single function for each box, but I don't consider that a good way.
If you want this for a large number, turn the entire setup into its own agent type: Checkbox and editbox. Instantiate as needed, you can add a parameter to specify what this is about exactly...
This would be the most generic and powerful approach...
if this works for you, you can use replications for checkboxes and editboxes and associate them together through the index... and then just add the code in the visible field of the edit box... Of course you will have to determine their positions programatically
I have a partstack I want to reuse in a different fragment. It looks like I can import the part stack in one fragment, so I did this.
Then under my Part Sash Container, I add a PlaceHolder element and select this imported Part in the "reference" section.
On both plugins, I have org.eclipse.e4.workbench.model extended.
And yet, nothing shows up.
I also tried to simplify it by just importing one Part. This also does not work.
I know I can create the entire structure and assign new IDs and reference the class files directly, but I don't think that is the correct way to accomplish this. What am I missing?
You put the element you want to share in the 'Shared Elements' section of the 'Trimmed Window' definition.
You then put 'Placeholder' entries in all the Perspectives that want to use the shared element.
I want to create my own custom toolbox. Therefore I created a metaclass and a stereotype. In the stereotype I wrote a note that gives some instructions about how to populate the object.
Problem is, when I create my MDG Technology, the Notes won't display in the objects I create in my diagram..
How can I fix this and display the Notes for every object I create?
You can either
Write and MDG-Addin to populate the notes for your elements.
Add an element with your stereotype to the template package and add the required notes there. This will have to be done on each model that uses your MDG.
Firstly I'm assuming that you can see the notes you seek on the Properties page of an element you create using your toolbox i.e. the notes field is populated.
If it is, check that notes visibility is turned on by doing these two things:
1) Select the element and go to Element->Feature and Compartment Visibility. Check the Show Notes box. Hit OK
2) Right click on an element and choose Advanced->Use Rectangle Notation
I have two similar (if not identical) node instances that are appearing differently in a deployment diagram (and anywhere else that I use them).
I may have done some odd things in the past while beating EA into submission.
But, now ... by pulling every lever I can imagine, I can't get them to appear the same (or behave the same). The one on the right is consistent with all the other nodes I have.
The colour is off and the "properties" (maybe they're tags?) showing in the body of the one on the left appear but I can't figure out where to edit / remove them.
I've tried:
Element ... Advanced ... Change type (Node --> Device and back to Node just to try and get it to 'forget' anything it's holding onto)
Remove & re-add stereotype to both the Node type (i.e. type from which instance was made) and the instance itself.
Creating a new instance from the same type, just to see what happens. It creates a node instance more like the one on the right.
Early on in developing this model, I created my own MDG technology. My guess is that the node on the left was created from a type in that MDG, which had some attributes available. It's conceivable to me that Sparx is hanging onto those attributes and not providing a way to edit because of the type was changed.
Any guidance on how to manipulate the under lying data (without creating a new node instance and replacing on all diagrams and re-configuring all relationships)?
Those are different elements. You see that the name (FQN) is different on both. Click each and issue Ctrl-G to locate them in the browser.
The green dot on top makes me think that you use your own MDG which puts the dot on <<SUSE>> stereotyped elements. So the MDG is likely what also makes them appear different depending on tagged values.
Regarding the Version and OS shown in the lower compartment of the left class: those are run states. You can edit them via Context/Features../Run State
For the colour of the element, I think what happened is this ... at some point, I selected (Element Context Menu) --> Appearance --> "Default Appearance" and clicked Reset to defaults. Even with a stereotype applied, this reverts to the "unstereotyped" appearance. I grabbed the RGB values from one the element on the right in the image and set the element on the left's values to those numbers and it's all consistent now.
The main question was the Run State variables, which #(Thomas Killian) addresses in another answer.
I'm trying to come up with a way to make it easy to switch out our "mock" data services and our live ones. Basically, we'll have live servers with real web services, but for whatever reason, a developer may want to load data from static files (file urls).
I figured I would solve this problem by creating categories that override the methods that fetch the data, thus leaving original code untouched (it has no concept of the "mock" data). I don't want to litter my code with #ifdef.
I can put an #ifdef at the very beginning of each file that has categories in it, and I can set a custom flag in the configuration settings, but I'd rather just have a way to include or exclude the files depending on the configuration. Is that possible? How do you solve this problem?
See http://lists.apple.com/archives/xcode-users/2009/Jun/msg00153.html
The trick is to define EXCLUDED_SOURCE_FILE_NAMES in the configuration you want to exclude the files from, and set the value of that custom build setting to a list of the file names (or a pattern that matches those, and only those, file names).
I would recommend creating two targets one of which has the mock categories included and another one which does not.
When you want to test, just build the target containing the mock categories. Everything else can remain identical.
If you would like to add a file but do not wont to compile it. Go to (for all your targets) project>build phases>compile source and take out the file that you do not want to compile.