eaXL : issues in importing sub-packages + classes

[Guillaume Finance]

Hi,

I exported the following package to Excel :
– PackageA
– PackageA1
+ Class1
+ Class2
+ Class3
– PackageA2
+ Class4
+ Class5

I need to add a PackageA3 with 2 new classes under PackageA.
So I created 3 lines in my Excel file but when I import it into EA, PackageA3 get created under PackageA2, not PackageA.

I tried to change the Groups in Excel without any luck.
Could you please advise the right way to achieve this?

thanks

[Adrian Support]

Hi,

eaXL gets its reference point from the package in the row immediately above and if not a package from the parent of the item above. There were a lot of choice but this seemed the most logical for us.

So to add the new items under package A – you insert them under Package A as below.

– PackageA
– PackageA3
– Class5
– Class6
– PackageA1
+ Class1
+ Class2
+ Class3
– PackageA2
+ Class4
+ Class5

Hope that helps – and let me know if any issue.

Adrian
eaDocX support

[Guillaume Finance]

Hi Adrian,

The example I gave you worked.
However based on your explanations, if we create more than one Package + classes, they automatically become subpackages of the newly created sub package.
So if PackageA1, PackageA2, PackageA3 are all new, they don’t go under PackageA but as follows:
PackageA
PackageA1
PackageA2
PackageA3

Do you think there’s any way round this?

thanks
Guillaume

[Adrian Support]

Hi Guillaume,

Your observation is correct and at present no workaround I’m afraid.
We used a simple rule, and until now no issues with it.

Will review and see what we can added for future releases.

BR
Adrian

[Guillaume Finance]

Hi Adrian,

Do you think you could add a specific field (ParentPackage) to use for new packages only, so we can explicitly specify the line number in Excel of its parent package ? (there may a better way to select the parent package in Excel..). If empty, it will be associated with the first existing Package above it.

Another option could involve a boolean value to force creating the package under the first existing package above it

Expected result:
– PackageA
+ Package A3
+ Package A1
– Package A2
+ Package A2.1

Option 1:
[line 4]- existing_PackageA [ParentPackage = empty]
[line 5]- new_PackageA3 [ParentPackage = 4]
[line 6]- Class5
[line 7]- Class6
[line 8]- new_PackageA1 [ParentPackage = 4]
[line 9]- Class1
[line 10]- Class2
[line 11]- Class3
[line 12]- new_PackageA2 [ParentPackage = 4]
[line 13]- Class4
[line 14]- Class5
[line 12]- new_PackageA2.1 [ParentPackage = 12]
[line 13]- Class4
[line 14]- Class5

Option 2:
existing_PackageA [force_ParentPackage = false/empty]
new_PackageA3 [force_ParentPackage = true]
– Class5
– Class6
new_PackageA1 [force_ParentPackage = true]
– Class1
– Class2
– Class3
new_PackageA2 [force_ParentPackage = true]
– Class4
– Class5
new_PackageA2.1 [force_ParentPackage = false]
– Class4
– Class5

Thanks
Guillaume

[Adrian Support]

Hi Guillaume,

Thanks for your suggestion. Either could work as you outline, my personal preference would be the boolean as it minises risk i.e. no data value entered. I’ve also been thinking about some options and favour a rule based solution, for example:

If I am an element then I use the row above as follows to find my owning package:
– if it is an element then I use its parent
– if it is a package then I use it

If I am a package then I use the row above as follows to find my owning package:
– if its an element I find its parent package and then use its parent
– if its a package I use its parent

This would not involve the user entering any data into existing rows and doesn’t complicate the output. The only issue is that it doesn’t produce the same structure as you outline in that there is not a mechanism to produce subpackages.

The challenge, as always, is to make it logical, minimise the risk associated with user data entry (to avoid ending up with a mess!) whilst keeping a usable UI.

We will have a chat here – and see what we come to.
Of course, whatever decision we make will not work for everyone :unsure:

Once again thanks for your input.

Regards

Adrian

[Author]

Posts