Support of file links in Archi

Started by Manj75, October 30, 2019, 08:06:51 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Manj75

I am able to add URL links as a value to a named property and notice an internet globe icon appear to the left of the property name that can be double clicked to open the link.  I want to be able to have file links specified in the same way, however I don't see this being supported at all.

If a file URI or path UNC is specified in the same way as URLs in properties you could display a folder icon and double clicking it will open a browser based file location or File Explorer.

Can this be done and added to the roadmap - I can add as a feature request.


  • Relates to my post on 'Active URL on Archi Diagrams' thread and would be good to have file links support on that if you adopted it.
  • Also, have file links supported in the Properties -> Main -> Documentation as I can see URL links are recognised, but are not clickable text links, but in a HTML report it is.

Phil Beauvoir

How do you parse a file link? The regex for URLs is to match strings starting with http:// https:// or ftp://
If you value and use Archi, please consider making a donation!
Ask your ArchiMate related questions to the ArchiMate Community's Discussion Board.

Manj75

I was going to raise another topic regarding how URLs is supported in Archi, but will expand out here:

It appears that Archi only recognises a URL if the domain consists of a '.' e.g. '.com', so http://www.google.com will be recognised as a URL if specified in the Documentation or as a value of a property.

However, if a URL is not of this format then it is not recognised as a URL.  A good example would be a URL to an internal SharePoint such as http://systemstfsportal/eap/SitePages/Home.aspx.  This is specified in the Documentation will not shown the URL text as blue and underlined showing it as a link, and if specified as a property value will not show the clickable internet globe icon to the left of the property name.

This is an inconsistency in my view in that URLs are recognised based on the '.' in the domain, where it should be on the http:// or https:// as you state.  I don't know how it is actually implemented but just stating my observed behavior and would be great to get this fixed, along with the enhancements added if you agree.

Hervé

May be the regexp may be updated to match for strings starting with "file://" ?

Manj75

I just wanted to reiterate that I do not see the regex even parsing and recognising http:// or https:// as it only recognises when there is a '.' in the URL, see my previous post.

Number of points on this thread:

  • Main one is to support file links
  • Web links are not properly recognised, in the example where domain name does not have a .com, .co.uk, .org, etc
  • All links should be clickable from within Archi Documentation as they are shown as a link, blue and underlined.  When exported to HTML report they are clickable.

Phil Beauvoir

@Manjit that is fixed in beta 3. See https://github.com/archimatetool/archi/issues/546
@Herve file:// works. I'll add that to the regex (an interesting side effect is to link to an *.archimate file)
If you value and use Archi, please consider making a donation!
Ask your ArchiMate related questions to the ArchiMate Community's Discussion Board.

Manj75

Hi Phil,

I completely understand you and would love to get involved with the development of Archi, but at the moment I'm promoting its adoption with clients where I am establishing an Architecture Practice.  Archi tool is fantastic and better then some of the commercial offerings.  Equally it's an easy route of adoption for organisations to use ArchiMate notation.

I want to at minimum contribute to identifying enhancements in the tool as I develop how it is being used within an Architecture Practice.  I thought best approach would be to start topics here that then get translated to a feature request on GitHub, but if you are happy for me to just raising feature requests first I can do so.  You can then review the feature request adopt/reject it based on priority, but it's good to discuss it with forum members.

Wrt 'that is fixed in beta 3' I presume that is for my points 2 & 3 - I will give it a try.

Thank you for all you effort, it is greatly appreciated  :)

Manjit