Since I've made this video yesterday for my benefactors, I might as well share it here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGEhhOxV1eU

now this is still far from done, however I do use FAMIX to represent the model (I have of course extended it, because FAMIX has no notion of multiplicities etc.), but in principle it should be able to visualize some subset of the FAMIX model.

If you want to look at it yourself, you can download ready-to-use image (based on Moose 6) here https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-contribution/job/DynaCASE/lastSuccessfulBuild/PHARO=50,VERSION=development,VM=vm/artifact/DynaCASE.zip

So maybe we can come up with something that you could use?

Of course many of the requirements you have can be achieved directly in Roassal, for example try running this

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| b |
b := RTUMLClassBuilder new.

b instanceVariables: #instVarNames. "show attributes"
"b instanceVariables: #()." "hide attributes"

b methodselector: #selector.
"b methodsNames: #methods." "show methods"
b methodsNames: #(). "hide methods"
b attributeselector: #yourself.

"all black, you can even have varying colors --- look at RTUMLExample>>examplecolored"
b attributeShape color: Color black.
b methodShape color: Color black.
b classNameShape color: Color black.
b lineShape color: Color black.
b boxShape borderColor: Color black.

b addObjects: (TREvent withAllSubclasses ).
b layout tree.

b build.
^b view
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Peter

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Anne Etien <anne.etien@univ-lille1.fr> wrote:
Hi,

For preparing my teaching course I would have love to have simple class hierarchy visualisations or even better, real UML representations.
Unfortunately, the UML like diagram from the Moose panel is not zoomable. It is by default in light grey saying that it is harder to read. It contains all the attributes and all the methods so it is difficult to put it in a single readable picture. Please make the experiment with the Famix-Core classes.
I was not able to do easily a class hierarchy with the name of the classes. After more than one hour, I gave up.
So it could be good, if we can have:
- a class hierarchy with only the names of the classes in boxes or not
- a class hierarchy with only attributes
- a class hierarchy with only methods
- the existing "UML" representation
- a real metamodel representation. Not as a system complexity representation, but as a real UML representation meaning with inheritance AND associations (those can be deduce from pragmas and now with the new MooseQuery API, we get all the methods to do it).

It should be possible to easily specify which classes we want to represent.

It seems to me the minimum vital to do real analyses.

In my course, I wanted to show I extended FAMIX for SQL purpose. It was so complex (because I don’t want not all FAMIX entity, but just the one from which the SQL classes inherit and without the methods) that once again I gave up.

I don’t have enough time to better look for. But anyway, I find it sad that it is so hard even for people knowing (a bit) Moose of not being able to do that.

Cheers,
Anne





_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev@list.inf.unibe.ch
https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev