Showing/hiding "visibility" of parameters in operation [message #1008508] |
Tue, 12 February 2013 18:59 |
Kirsten M. Z. Messages: 132 Registered: July 2010 |
Senior Member |
|
|
I loved Papyrus with all its features and possibilities from the very beginning, but I never used it because of one trivial reason: problems in adjusting the appearance. This is not a big deal in "daily business" and engineering, but I also build lectures and take lots of screenshots, so I want to visualize diagrams in a "common" way.
In fact, Papyrus offers more possibilities than most other tools. However, an important flag seems to be buggy since years. Therefore, I wanted to ask, if this is an "known" issue. I would be looking forward to use Papyrus as my favorite UML tool.
The problem (#1):
Why are the flags for showing/hiding the visibility of operation and it parameters not independent from each other? I want to show "+ operation ( param : int )". But the only possibilities I have are "operation ( param : int )" or "+ operation (+ param : int )". The later version is almost never shown in regular publications.
Problem (#2):
There is almost the same problem with modifiers. However, I can see two flags "modifiers" and "parameter modifiers". The problem is that "parameter modifiers" does not switch anything and "modifier" switches the visibility of both (operation and its parameters)
I am using Papyrus 0.10.0.v201302090551
I didn't want to ask a question until now, because I thought that the new CSS feature could help. However, according to the only resource I found (http://www.eclipse.org/papyrus/usersTutorials/resources/PapyrusTutorial_OnDiagramStylesheets.pdf), showing/hiding elements with CSS is not possible yet.
Are these issues known? Shall we enter a "bug"?
[Updated on: Wed, 13 February 2013 00:52] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Showing/hiding "visibility" of parameters in operation [message #1008558 is a reply to message #1008508] |
Wed, 13 February 2013 00:42 |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hi Kirsten,
just want to add that adjusting visualization does really matter, and
Papyrus would need some improvement here. What bothers me is actually the
inability of Papyrus (at least until 0.9.1) to line-break labels. Labels
commonly become quite long.
Actually, does anyone from the dev team know whether there is an issue
reported for the missing word wrapping functionality, or if there is already
a plan to incorporate this feature.
Marc-Florian
"Kirsten M. Z." schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:kfe3f5$8f1$1@xxxxxxxxe.org...
I loved Papyrus with all its features and possibilities from the very
beginning, but I never used it because of one trivial reason: problems in
adjusting the appearance. This is not a big deal in "daily business" and
engineering, but I also build lectures and make lots of screenshots, so I
would visualize diagrams in a "common" way.
In fact, Papyrus offers more possibilities than most other tools. However,
an important flag seems to be buggy since year. Therefore, I wanted to ask,
if this is an "known" issue. I would be looking forward to use Papyrus as my
favorite UML tool.
The problem (#1):
Why is the flag for showing/hiding the visibility of operation and it
parameters not independent from each other? I want to show "+ operation (
param : int )". But the only possibilities I have are "operation ( param :
int )" or "+ operation (+ param : int )". The later version is almost never
shown in regular publications.
Problem (#2):
There is almost the same problem with modifiers. However, I can see two
flags "modifiers" and "parameter modifiers". The problem is that "parameter
modifiers" does not switch anything and "modifier" switches the visibility
of both (operation and its parameters)
I am using Papyrus 0.10.0.v201302090551
I didn't want to ask a question until now, because I thought that the new
CSS feature could help. However, according to the only resource I found
(http://www.eclipse.org/papyrus/usersTutorials/resources/PapyrusTutorial_OnDiagramStylesheets.pdf),
showing/hiding elements with CSS is not possible yet.
Are these issues known? Shall we enter a "bug"?
|
|
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03886 seconds