I'm very new to Enterprise Architecture, In a state machine i tried to give the name for a transition. but it takes only 255 characters. Is there any way to give name having more than 255 characters?
As far as I know, you cannot extend the length of the name field (possibly you may hack yourself through using EA's automation interface, but even then it's probably not worth the effort).
For modeling elements, you can add a tagged value to the element and assign it the MEMO data type but that can be a bit complicated. Then you can set the diagram to display tagged values. So the solution suggested by #chimp is probably better.
Related
We regularly need to perform a handful of relatively simple tests against a bunch of MS Word documents. As these checks are currently done manually, I am striving for a way to automate this. For example:
Check if every page actually has a page number and verify that it is correct.
Verify that a version identifier in the page header is identical across all pages.
Check if the document has a table of contents.
Check if the document has a table of figures.
Check if every figure has a caption.
et cetera. Is this reasonably feasible using PowerShell in conjunction with a Word API?
Powershell can access Word via its object model/Interop (on Windows, at any rate) and AIUI can also work with the Office Open XML OOXML) API, so really you should be able to write any checks you want on the document content. What is slightly less obvious is how you verify that the document content will result in a particular "printed appearance". I'm going to start with some comments on the details first.
Just bear in mind that in the following notes I'm just pointing out a few things that you might have to deal with. If you're examining documents produced by an organisation where people are already broadly speaking following the same standards, it may be easier.
Of the 5 examples you give, without checking the details I couldn't say exactly how you would do them, and there could be difficulties with all of them, but for example
Check if every page actually has a page number and verify that it is correct.
Difficult using either OOXML or the object model, because what you would really be checking is that the header for a particular section had a visible { PAGE } field code. Because that field code might be nested inside other fields that say "if don't display this field code", it's not so easy to be sure that there would be a page number.
Which is what I mean by checking the document's "printed appearance" - if, for example, you can use the object model to print to PDF and have some mechanism that lets PS inspect the PDF's content, that might be a better approach.
Verify that a version identifier in the page header is identical across all pages.
Similar problem to the above, IMO. It depends partly on how the version identifier might be inserted. Is it just a piece of text? Could it be constructed from a number of fields? Might it reference Document Properties or Variables, or Custom XML content?
Check if the document has a table of contents.
Perhaps enough to look for a TOC field that does not have certain options, such as a \c option that a Table of Figures would contain.
Check if the document has a table of figures.
Perhaps enough to check for a TOC field that does have a \c option, perhaps with a specific parameter such as "Figure"
Check if every figure has a caption.
Not sure that you can tell whether a particular image is "a Figure". But if you mean "verify that every graphic object has a caption", you could probably iterate through the inline and floating graphics in the document and verify that there was something that looked like a Word standard caption paragraph within a certain distance of that object. Word has two standard field code patterns for captions AFAIK (one where the chapter number is included and one where it isn't), so you could look for those. You could measure a distance between the image and the caption by ensuring that they were no more than a predefined number of paragraphs apart, or in the case of a floating image, perhaps that the paragraph anchoring the image was no more than so many paragraphs away from the caption.
A couple of more general problems that you might have to deal with:
- just because a document contains a certain feature, such as a ToC field, does not mean that it is visible. A TOC field might have been formatted as not visible. Even harder to detect, it could have been formatted as colored white.
- change tracking. You might have to use the Word object model to "accept changes" before checking whether any given feature is actually there or not. Unless you can find existing code that would help you do that using the OOXML representation of the document, that's probably a strong case for doing checks via the object model.
Some final observations
for future checks, perhaps worth noting that in principle you could create a "DocumentInspector" that users could call from Word BackStage to perform checks on a document. Not sure you can force users to run it, or that you could create it in PS, but perhaps a useful tool.
longer term, if you are doing a very large number of checks, perhaps worth considering whether you could train a ML model to try to detect problems.
I have a query in MGD technology regarding a tagged value of Type “RefGUIDList”.
I am using MDG technology in which I am giving the tagged value of type “RefGUIDList”, which should refer to maximum number(multiplicity 0-n) of elements. But in MDG it is not able to refer more than 6 elements.
The error I see when I try to assign more than 6 elements to a tag of type RefGUIDList.
Please tell me is there any way to increase the count of the references or let me know is there any other tagged value for referring maximum number of elements.
You could tweak you database schema for t_objectproperties.value so they can hold more chars. But this is absolutely on your own risk. Some people have done so with different char fields. But you should first try in a sandbox to find out if it works without side effects. And of course you won't get much support from Sparx if something fails.
Alternatively you could send in a feature request. Postal address: Santa Claus, North Pole.
I've got a piece of code that takes into account a given amount of features, where each feature is Boolean. I'm looking for the most efficient way to store a set of such features. My initial thought was to try and store these as a BitSet. But then, I realized that this implementation is meant to be used to store numbers in bit format rather than manipulate each bit, which is something I'd like to do (see the effect of switching any feature on and off). I then thought of using a Boolean array, but apparently the JVM uses much more memory for each Boolean element than the one bit it actually needs.
I'm therefore left with the question: What is the most efficient way to store a set of bits that I'd like to treat as independent bits rather than the building blocks of some number?
Please refer to this question: boolean[] vs. BitSet: Which is more efficient?
According to the answer of Peter Lawrey, boolean[] (not Boolean[]) is your way to go since its values can be manipulated and it takes only one byte of memory per bit to store. Consider that there is no way for a JVM application to store one bit in only one bit of memory and let it be directly (array-like) manipulated because it needs a pointer to find the address of the bit and the smallest addressable unit is a byte.
The site you referenced already states that the mutable BitSet is the same as the java.util.BitSet. There is nothing you can do in Java that you can't do in Scala. But since you are using Scala, you probably want a safe implementation which is probably meant to be even multithreaded. Mutable datatypes are not suitable for that. Therefore, I would simply use an immutable BitSet and accept the memory cost.
However, BitSets have their limits (deriving from the maximum number of int). If you need larger data sizes, you may use LongBitSets, which are basically Map<Long, BitSet>. If you need even more space, you may nest them in another map Map<Long, LongBitSet>, but in that case you need to use two or more identifiers (longs).
I have a large number of strings containing a product name and a few other properties (size, volume, age, etc). But the strings are not standardized at all. Product names might be misspelled, volume might be in a different notation (0.5l, 1/2 liter, 500ml, etc). The number of variations is limited though, there are for instance only a few hundred products. What tools can I use to analyze each string and tell me if it contains certain tokens? My guess is that some sort of learning mechanism would be useful, but I'm not sure which tools would offer just that. I've looked at ElasticSearch, but I'm not sure if that's the way to go. All my data is currently in a PostgreSQL db and I've looked at pg_grm as well. Again, not sure if that fits my need.
One solution I've been thinking about is maintaining a list of proper keywords and, per string, see if the string contains any of the keywords. I'm not sure if this would work and, if it would, how to efficiently and effectively implement it in postgresql
EDIT
Here are a few example lines I'm trying to extract keywords from:
wine Bardolo red 1L 12b 12%
La Tulipe, 13* box 3 bottles, 2005
Great Johnny Walker 7CL 22% red label
Wisky Jonny Walken .7 Red limited editon
I've done quite some searching by now but have yet to find a proper way to solve this problem.
I've used pg_trgm extension for similar task (I was comparing misspelled address lines and company names) along with clustering algorithm (may be not needed in your case).
It's done it's job with some data preparations (regexp replacements).
May be not very easy but I'm sure it's possible to solve your problem too. And index support in pg_trgm is great.
A few months back I was tasked with implementing a unique and random code for our web application. The code would have to be user friendly and as small as possible, but still be essentially random (so users couldn't easily predict the next code in the sequence).
It ended up generating values that looked something like this:
Af3nT5Xf2
Unfortunately, I was never satisfied with the implementation. Guid's were out of the question, they were simply too big and difficult for users to type in. I was hoping for something more along the lines of 4 or 5 characters/digits, but our particular implementation would generate noticeably patterned sequences if we encoded to less than 9 characters.
Here's what we ended up doing:
We pulled a unique sequential 32bit id from the database. We then inserted it into the center bits of a 64bit RANDOM integer. We created a lookup table of easily typed and recognized characters (A-Z, a-z, 2-9 skipping easily confused characters such as L,l,1,O,0, etc.). Finally, we used that lookup table to base-54 encode the 64-bit integer. The high bits were random, the low bits were random, but the center bits were sequential.
The final result was a code that was much smaller than a guid and looked random, even though it absolutely wasn't.
I was never satisfied with this particular implementation. What would you guys have done?
Here's how I would do it.
I'd obtain a list of common English words with usage frequency and some grammatical information (like is it a noun or a verb?). I think you can look around the intertubes for some copy. Firefox is open-source and it has a spellchecker... so it must be obtainable somehow.
Then I'd run a filter on it so obscure words are removed and that words which are too long are excluded.
Then my generation algorithm would pick 2 words from the list and concatenate them and add a random 3 digits number.
I can also randomize word selection pattern between verb/nouns like
eatCake778
pickBasket524
rideFlyer113
etc..
the case needn't be camel casing, you can randomize that as well. You can also randomize the placement of the number and the verb/noun.
And since that's a lot of randomizing, Jeff's The Danger of Naïveté is a must-read. Also make sure to study dictionary attacks well in advance.
And after I'd implemented it, I'd run a test to make sure that my algorithms should never collide. If the collision rate was high, then I'd play with the parameters (amount of nouns used, amount of verbs used, length of random number, total number of words, different kinds of casings etc.)
In .NET you can use the RNGCryptoServiceProvider method GetBytes() which will "fill an array of bytes with a cryptographically strong sequence of random values" (from ms documentation).
byte[] randomBytes = new byte[4];
RNGCryptoServiceProvider rng = new RNGCryptoServiceProvider();
rng.GetBytes(randomBytes);
You can increase the lengh of the byte array and pluck out the character values you want to allow.
In C#, I have used the 'System.IO.Path.GetRandomFileName() : String' method... but I was generating salt for debug file names. This method returns stuff that looks like your first example, except with a random '.xyz' file extension too.
If you're in .NET and just want a simpler (but not 'nicer' looking) solution, I would say this is it... you could remove the random file extension if you like.
At the time of this writing, this question's title is:
How can I generate a unique, small, random, and user-friendly key?
To that, I should note that it's not possible in general to create a random value that's also unique, at least if each random value is generated independently of any other. In addition, there are many things you should ask yourself if you want to generate unique identifiers (which come from my section on unique random identifiers):
Can the application easily check identifiers for uniqueness within the desired scope and range (e.g., check whether a file or database record with that identifier already exists)?
Can the application tolerate the risk of generating the same identifier for different resources?
Do identifiers have to be hard to guess, be simply "random-looking", or be neither?
Do identifiers have to be typed in or otherwise relayed by end users?
Is the resource an identifier identifies available to anyone who knows that identifier (even without being logged in or authorized in some way)?
Do identifiers have to be memorable?
In your case, you have several conflicting goals: You want identifiers that are—
unique,
easy to type by end users (including small), and
hard to guess (including random).
Important points you don't mention in the question include:
How will the key be used?
Are other users allowed to access the resource identified by the key, whenever they know the key? If not, then additional access control or a longer key length will be necessary.
Can your application tolerate the risk of duplicate keys? If so, then the keys can be completely randomly generated (such as by a cryptographic RNG). If not, then your goal will be harder to achieve, especially for keys intended for security purposes.
Note that I don't go into the issue of formatting a unique value into a "user-friendly key". There are many ways to do so, and they all come down to mapping unique values one-to-one with "user-friendly keys" — if the input value was unique, the "user-friendly key" will likewise be unique.
If by user friendly, you mean that a user could type the answer in then I think you would want to look in a different direction. I've seen and done implementations for initial random passwords that pick random words and numbers as an easier and less error prone string.
If though you're looking for a way to encode a random code in the URL string which is an issue I've dealt with for awhile then I what I have done is use 64-bit encoded GUIDs.
You could load your list of words as chakrit suggested into a data table or xml file with a unique sequential key. When getting your random word, use a random number generator to determine what words to fetch by their key. If you concatenate 2 of them, I don't think you need to include the numbers in the string unless "true randomness" is part of the goal.