I’m a new user using Capella 6.1
I learned a lot in the past few weeks. But currently I’m stuck on some strange behavior of Capella.
According, the Capella User Manual (chapter Iterative Transitions) a transition from OA to SA should only consider elements which are not already linked (justified) to the model in the upper (OA) level.
This works pretty fine for a while. When adding some operational activities in OA and performing a Functional Transition, only the new added operational activities are transitioned and will appear in SA.
But after a lot of iterative transitions, the behavior changes. After then all Operational Activity (also Activites already linked/realized) are transitioned. This result in duplicates of the already transitioned System Functions. Even after getting rid of all the data in the System Analysis (elements and realization links) this strange/wrong behavior can not be fixed.
Seems that somehow, I crashed the model.
Is this behavior already known?
Is there a way to clean-up my Model?
Thank you for your response
Well, it does not look good, but it is going to be difficult to reproduce the problem unless you’re willing to raise a bugzilla on the Capella project and provide an example model and a scenario to reproduce the issue.
What I have heard from experimented users on large project as that in general, they don’t use the while transition. A given user, with its own scope of responsibility, would select only the items (let’s say functions) he is working on/responsible of and transition them by right-clicking on them from the project explorer.
thank you for your fast response. Since I am not sure if its an user error, I do not want to raise an issue.
So, I will play around a little bit and come back if my problem still exists.
I think I have the same problem. How did you solve it ? or Have you never faced with same problem again?
Unfortunately I couldn’t solve the problem. As I only do an evaluation, I can live with it. But it is annoying.
I will try to provide some good/bad example an will raise an issue as Stephane proposed.
We forwarded the problem to our PLM crew. If any solution comes up, I will update the topic.