more in 3.0.4 core_al_app_provider_summary.xsl

Post Reply
kgeis
Posts: 5
Joined: 10 Jul 2012, 00:37

I've got some rendering problems with core_al_app_provider_summary.xsl in 3.0.4.
  • In the Strategic Plans section, my dates (Quarters) are not rendered correctly:
    Plan valid from date essential_baseline_v3.0.4_Class20066
  • In the Physical Technology Platforms section, the table has six columns. For one entry, two rows are generated; the second row is empty and only has three cells. The first cell has an empty <a> that points to the "Technology Instance Definition" view
  • The links from the Physical Node and Instance Names (to technology/core_phys_node_def.xsl and technology/core_tech_instance_def.xsl respectively) are broken. Those XSLs do not exist.
User avatar
jonathan.carter
Posts: 1087
Joined: 04 Feb 2009, 15:44

Thanks for letting us know about this.

We have found a number of issues with this view since we released it and we'll make sure that these are included in the set of things to be fixed

Jonathan
Essential Project Team
rungsima
Posts: 10
Joined: 15 Dec 2009, 07:29

I have found problem in "Logical Technology Builds" section when there are more than one technology component in a capability or more than one product in a technology component as attached picture
essential_app_summary_problem.jpg
.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
rungsima
Posts: 10
Joined: 15 Dec 2009, 07:29

and error message popup:
DataTables warning (table id='dt_LogicalTechnologyBuild'):
Requested unknow parameter '1' from the data source for row 4
User avatar
jonathan.carter
Posts: 1087
Joined: 04 Feb 2009, 15:44

Thanks for these. We'll check whether we've already picked these up and if not, add them to the bug list.

This is quite a large View and we have found and resolved a few issues with it. We plan to release a minor version very soon containing these fixes.
Essential Project Team
srinivas
Posts: 2
Joined: 01 Jul 2014, 14:54

Has this issue been addressed and released, if so can I download it.

Thanks
Srinivas
User avatar
jonathan.carter
Posts: 1087
Joined: 04 Feb 2009, 15:44

The latest version of the software is currently version 4.3.1, and there have been a number of fixes and improvements to the views since version 3.0.4

If you download the latest installer and select the Essential Viewer package, this will deploy the web application to your chosen application server, with the latest versions of all the views. Once the application server has deployed the application, you can navigate the 'Essential_Viewer' folder to find the view templates and copy them into your existing template. Alternatively, you can migrate all your custom views into the latest version of Essential Viewer.

Jonathan
Essential Project Team
gdamico
Posts: 32
Joined: 21 Oct 2015, 22:20
Location: Venezuela

Hi,

This still happens in the latest version of Essential (3.4.1).

Image
Gian Piero D'Amico
Enterprise Architect
vhquijia
Posts: 30
Joined: 15 Apr 2015, 20:39

Hi everyone

Ho to fix this issue related
Thanks

Victor H
User avatar
jonathan.carter
Posts: 1087
Joined: 04 Feb 2009, 15:44

Hi,

Thanks for posting this.

The first thing to say about this view is that we are in the process of finalising the next release, which includes a new version of this view that re-works how this information is rendered.

However, I've looked into the View code and tried it with some of our demo content and I can't easily replicate the issue. Perhaps you could send a copy of your repository to us and we will be able to diagnose what is happening - both in the repository and in the Views? I suspect that this will also help to identify why none or your graphical models are being sent through as PNGs to the Viewer (the cause of the "Architecture image: nnnnn.png" message instead of a copy of your graphical model)

The simplest way to share a repository is as a ZIP of the 3 Protege files (.PPRJ, .PINS, .PONT) and please feel free to send this directory to our support email account rather than posting in the forum.

Regards

Jonathan
Essential Project Team
gdamico
Posts: 32
Joined: 21 Oct 2015, 22:20
Location: Venezuela

Hi Jonathan,

I've send the files you asked few days ago.

Maybe you already know that the PNG issue has been solved by downgrading from Tomcat 8 to Tomcat 7, but the tables still show incorrectly.

I will wait for your answer.

Thanks in advance.
Gian Piero D'Amico
Enterprise Architect
User avatar
jonathan.carter
Posts: 1087
Joined: 04 Feb 2009, 15:44

Thanks for the update.

Great to hear that you've solved the initial publishing problem by downgrading Tomcat. We will investigate this for the forthcoming release.

In terms of how this view is laying out the content - or rather failing to lay it out - we are upgrading this and many other views in the forthcoming release of the Essential toolset. We're still aiming for Q4 2015.

Jonathan
Essential Project Team
gdamico
Posts: 32
Joined: 21 Oct 2015, 22:20
Location: Venezuela

Hi Jonathan,

Really good to know about the new essential version. We are expectant.

By the way, Will this version provide the TOGAF View Pack planned in the Essential Roadmap?

Regards.
Gian Piero D'Amico
Enterprise Architect
User avatar
jonathan.carter
Posts: 1087
Joined: 04 Feb 2009, 15:44

Hi,

Many of those views will form part of the suite that are included in version 5.
However, we do need to revisit that roadmap, which only serves to provide a rough guide to what we will be looking at. Much of our development is guided by what the user community needs, and even in the context of following TOGAF, more specific views are often what is needed.

It would certainly be really interesting to know which views you need from the TOGAF suite...!

Jonathan
Essential Project Team
gdamico
Posts: 32
Joined: 21 Oct 2015, 22:20
Location: Venezuela

Hi Jonathan,

There's a lot of artifacts recommended by TOGAF for each phase of the Architecture Development Method (ADM), these are selected depending on the stakeholders concerns indentified on the current architecture engagement so, in order to fulfill its purposes for any architecture engamgement one would expect the visor to be capable to provide a TOGAF view catalog.

We are aware about the Essential framework agnostic approach, so in order to determine the equivalence between default Essential views and TOGAF artifacts we compared them in terms of both: its metamodels entities usage and declared purposes. This job was focused in Information Architecture and Technology Architecture artifacts/views. What we found is that there's little correspondence between Essential default views and TOGAF prescribed artifacts (in terms of diagrams o matrices, because we hope catalogs can be made using querys, although not rendered in the visor without programming).

We know that the TOGAF artifacts are not mandatory, we can use Archimate Viewpoints, UML Diagrams, or even Essential Views, but What about organisations in early TOGAF adoption stages trying to determine by itself the TOGAF artifacts usefulness?

Until this moment we were confident about a TOGAF Viewpack availbility in the near future because the published roadmap say so, but seems that hope is vane.

Tahnks.
Gian Piero D'Amico
Enterprise Architect
User avatar
jonathan.carter
Posts: 1087
Joined: 04 Feb 2009, 15:44

Hi Gian Piero,

We certainly had planned to produce a TOGAF-related pack but working with our clients, we have not found that these 'out-of-the-box' TOGAF views were what is required - and we're always driven by the needs of our clients and users. Rather, we moved towards providing views that answer specific architecture questions to drive business outcomes instead of particular TOGAF viewpoints.

However, we continue to develop the meta model to support the key concepts of TOGAF as it evolves and we have worked with many clients who are using TOGAF with Essential. We have produced a mapping of the TOGAF meta model to the Essential Meta Model to ensure that we are able to model everything that is required by such clients. In addition, we have also produced data capture spreadsheets that enable content to be captured in TOGAF terminology and from which we can import automatically into the Essential repository. However, even in such contexts, we found that Views that answer the specific architecture questions - typically in less technical, easy-to-understand terminology - were required by our clients.

We are confident that we can support any architecture team that is using TOGAF and we're always happy to work with any users who require more-specific TOGAF views. Of course, the Views themselves are not compiled and are designed to enable you to produce the view that you need. It is certainly our experience that views that specifically work for you and your stakeholders are much more powerful than generic, non-specific views.

It certainly one of our objectives that people using TOGAF can use Essential to manage the continuum and aside from the point about the Views, we believe that they can. Please do let us know if we are missing anything on the repository side.

Thanks also for pointing out (indirectly) that our roadmap certainly requires some updating. ;)

Jonathan
Essential Project Team
gdamico
Posts: 32
Joined: 21 Oct 2015, 22:20
Location: Venezuela

Thanks.
Gian Piero D'Amico
Enterprise Architect
Post Reply