I am using IDA 7.6 to create Generalization relationships between Subtype and Supertype entities.
On the logical diagram it is always showing the name of the ‘Generalization Set’ relationship belonging to the Supertype Entity.
So if the Supertype entity has multiple subtype entities then the same name appears on every relationship.
Furthermore there is no option to remove the generalization set name from the diagram, as you can do with other relationship types.
Surly it should be showing the name of the Generalization belonging to the subtype entity, thus explaining the different purpose of each subtype.
So is this a bug or a design mistake?
This topic has been locked.
2 replies Latest Post - 2012-10-18T09:30:46Z by rayweekes
Pinned topic Generalization Relationships on Logical Diagrams
Answered question This question has been answered.
Unanswered question This question has not been answered yet.
Updated on 2012-10-18T09:30:46Z at 2012-10-18T09:30:46Z by rayweekes
nmullin 1200008HG150 PostsACCEPTED ANSWER
Re: Generalization Relationships on Logical Diagrams2012-10-17T15:14:00Z in response to rayweekesHi there,
I found the following link that explains and provides a pluglet that enables IDA 7.6 to remove the text shown on diagrams related to generalization sets. http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/forums/thread.jspa?messageID=14815092
In IDA 8.1 you do not need the plugin. Simply: 1) select the generalization relationship, 2) Right-click and select "Select All of Same Type" 3) Select "No Connector Labels" by selecting the No Connector Label icon from the tool bar or right clicking on the relationship selecting Filters--> Show/Hide Connector Labels --> No Connector Labels.
I hope this helps.
rayweekes 100000GJ7P6 PostsACCEPTED ANSWER
Re: Generalization Relationships on Logical Diagrams2012-10-18T09:30:46Z in response to rayweekesThanks for that.
I can now hide all the ‘Generalization Set’ names.
But I still can’t show the correct relationship name from the subtype entity.
(to circumvent I add some diagram text of my own).
So I still think it’s a design mistake in the tooling.