Feature requests

Documents SQL Server 2000, 2005 and 2008 databases.


Feature requests

Postby ddustin » Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:25 am

Hi,

I had a play with the the demo version of SQL Doc, and have found it very cool. However, there are a few things that, in my opinion, could make it even better.

    - The ability to create a CHM or MHT file of the web structure, thus enabling the easy distribution of the document.
    - Create a flat version that doesn't use the index down the side, but rather a "table of contents" document.
    - Allow for the use of templates to alter the look/feel of the final output, thus matching any other documentation styles that may already exist.

It's a really nice product, and I look forward to making use of it in the foreseable future.

Thanks

Dave
ddustin
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:15 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Postby Robert » Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:51 am

Hi Dave,

Thanks for the comments. Some thoughts...

1) CHM is certainly something we're considering doing in the future.

2) Depending on how much of a "table of contents" you're looking for, you could try generating the document using the "HTML With Frames" style, then just loading the right-hand frame and ignoring the frameset entirely. In this case you'll want to load the "index.html" file in the output directory. Obviously navigation is then harder, but it might suit your needs better than always having the tree.

3) This is possible to some degree already by modifying the CSS stylesheet used by the documentation. If you're familiar with CSS, then you can find the master stylesheet (used whenever you generate a new set of documentation) in the SQL Doc installation directory, then "Style1", "Styles", and finally "Master.css". Hopefully this will let you make the documentation appear closer to your own house style.

Many thanks,
Robert
Robert Chipperfield
Red Gate
Robert
 
Posts: 410
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 11:15 am
Location: Cambridge, UK

Postby david connell » Tue Nov 28, 2006 10:57 am

Hi Chris,

Thanks for you comments.

1) Yes column dependencies is on our wish list too. However I donot believe that it will not be covered in the upcoming V1.1 release.

2) On the tree view on the left hand side you can select checkboxes from anywhere in the tree. (eg on Views for a database.) Won't this give you the action you wanted?

3) Database modelling tool - I will pass your request on...

Best Regards
David
david connell
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:12 am

Postby monkeygrind » Tue Nov 28, 2006 7:04 pm

I'd also like to see column sorting on the tables, e.g. sort the list of tables by created, rowcount, etc.

Being able to check for cross database dependencies would be nice as well. And I'd second the database modeling request - the tools from MSFT are not up to par, and it seems for Red-Gate this is a next logical step.

Also, I notice that whitespace not always translated especially wrt to tabs.

Code: Select all
/* Modified by Date Change
*****************************************************
jdennis 04/10/2006 Created sproc
phoeffer 04/10/2006 updated to work with PP db
-- locationid is the current location
*/


This appears correctly tabbed in SQLEM or SQLWB:

Also, when looking at a database I click on the quick links such as Properties, Members, etc. nothing happens (IE7).
monkeygrind
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:57 pm
Location: Seattle-ish

Postby david connell » Tue Nov 28, 2006 7:41 pm

Hi there,
Great idea about sorting on by the columns. I'll put that forward.
If you document two databases at once, the interdatabase dependancy will show up at the bottom of the pages on the generated report. (These are not displayed in the preview page).
Please note that all links are disabled when viewing the preview page. (The only exception is editing the descriptions.)
The tabs in the SQL Script are changed to 4 non-breaking spaces. I will go and double check that this does work as I have just mentioned.
Thank you for your comments.
Best regards
David
david connell
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:12 am

Re:

Postby Chris Buettner » Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:22 am

Hello David!

Thanks for your quick answer. Regarding the second point:
david connell wrote:Hi Chris,
2) On the tree view on the left hand side you can select checkboxes from anywhere in the tree. (eg on Views for a database.) Won't this give you the action you wanted?


My statement was "a little" misleading ;-) What I really wanted to say is the following:
When you select one or more tables in a database to be documented, I would like to have all dependent objects included, also the ones in different databases that were not included for documentation.
Hope this makes it a little more clear.

Regarding the type filter, I would prefer this as a master setting, not only per database. The emphasis was mostly on dependencies again. But also triggers, indexes and permissions should be extractable separately from the table.

Thanks & Regards,
Chris
Chris Buettner
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:00 am

Postby david connell » Thu Nov 30, 2006 12:05 pm

Hi Chris,
Thanks for the comments...
I am pretty sure that non-documented objects will be listed in the used/Used by section at the bottom of the object. However the item will not be hyperlinked as there is no object to link it to.
Inter database depencies are not so clear cut.
I think that if you document database a & database B at the same time then the inter-dependancy will be shown
    either as a link, if both objects are documented
    with out a link if the target object was excluded from documentation.
    Not at all! Because the link could only be found from the object that is being ignored

So you would need to document at the same time the other database(s) where you know their to be dependancies.
Thank you for explaining the global settings for filters...
Regards
David
david connell
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:12 am

Postby david connell » Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:08 pm

Hi Chris,
For clarification, you will not get "Used By"s for objects that relate to a database that is not being documented. The way to get round this is to document something from that database eg a user that should be enough...
Regards
Michelle.
david connell
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:12 am

Postby Andbor » Tue Dec 26, 2006 7:43 pm

Hi,

Now our company searches for a suitable tool which allows us to document our databases. We are very interested in evaluate your tool. In the process of evaluation we discovered that needful feature absents. It's ability to document databases into HMTL 2.0 format. It is very important for us. Do you plan to realize this feature in the near future?

Thanks,
Andrew Borenko.
Andbor
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 7:31 pm

Postby david connell » Wed Jan 03, 2007 11:22 am

Hi Andrew,
I presume from your question you are refering to MS Help 2 (.HsX)
I donot think that we will be supporting this style of help in the upcomming release 1.1. However there is a Microsoft utility called HxConv.exe that is meant to convert between CHM and HsX files. It is meant to do a reasonable job, however I have never used it, but it could be a useful tool.
Hope that helps
David Connell
david connell
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:12 am


Return to SQL Doc 1

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests