I have on canvas grouped object (consists from 2 rectangles). There is UserData key-value pair (“ID”-“123”) belongs to this group. I need to show ID (using “<%UserData ID%>”) in one of rectangles - member of this group. This rectangle hasn’t any user data key-value pairs. How can I retrieve group’s data to the member of group?
There is a principle, the Whole and its Parts. While each Part belongs to the Whole, each Part is not the whole. A Part is not identified by the identity of the Whole.
So what you are trying to do will exceed a problem of logic. Whatever method anyone comes up with is going to be fraught with problems. If you are trying to save on “duplication” (double quotes because it is a perception, not real), by giving values to the Whole, and hoping that the Parts “inherit” the values of the Whole, that will not work: the UML notion of Inheritance by badly broken.
Given that you want the Parts to have (or not have) data values, is it possible for you place that
<%UserData X%> in each Part, where it belongs ?
This answer has some detail that may assist in dealing with objects that have multiple text boxes:
Line spacing problems with text
I want to make one universal graphical object with label “ID” (rectangle - part of the group) that could be multiplied and feature is that user wouldn’t change the text field “ID” of this rectangle but do that by changing value of key “ID” of key-value pair of it’s own top-level group.
Every Shape of group can belongs only to one hierarchy top level Group. Why it’s impossible to realise this feature. Principles is important part of anything but…
Well, if that feature does not exist in the tool, then it is impossible.
It may not be the fault of the tool. The fault may be in your expectation. No matter how hard you try to obtain your expectation from a tool that simply does not have it, it will be impossible. So the suffering is due to the expectation, not the tool.
If you are interested in producing a diagram, using the tool, within its limits, please post again.
I do not understand why the user would be given an OmniGraffle diagram, to mess with and screw up.
I would give the user a PDF, such that they cannot screw it up.
If you need the user to enter values after they view the PDF of the diagram, there are 100 ways to do that, without giving them an OmniGraffle file. You may wish to describe the purpose of the diagram, so that responses are within that scope.
But what ?
If I break a principle, whether I do it when cooking or when drawing a diagram, I am guaranteed to experience the consequences of breaking the principle, that is why we have principles. I love science, I don’t break the rules. I don’t have to wait until I experience the consequences, to register that I made a great mistake, I respect the principle.
Some day monkeys broke their principles and become humans and it’s very philosophical questions. There are two ways: adhere to the principles whole life or founding solutions and may be new principles… (Ohm… It was one simple question about key-value pairs)
I don’t ask you to breake principles (they are not fundamental principles of nature, right?) but may be there is the reason to improve them?
Discussion become toxic(
I’ve found the solution of this issue with automations.
They are. Aristotle. 350BC. If you are unaware of them, you will be operating at a level that is more primitive than the ancient Greeks.
Pardon me, but it proved the suffering was not in the tool.
Ok, so it wasn’t a simple question about key-value pairs.
I didn’t evolve from a monkey, I am a created being. As proved by Aristotle.