It's all about the answers!

Ask a question
QuestionsTagsUsersBadges
Guidelines | FAQ
Follow this question
Question details

×10,877
×3,954

question asked: Jan 29 '13, 3:58 p.m.
question was seen: 4,384 times
last updated: Feb 04 '13, 9:24 a.m.

Related questions

Bulk loading comments from Excel

0
1
Joel Million (21●1●1●2) | asked Jan 29 '13, 3:58 p.m.

In the context of sharing requirements with an external party.

We do not allow access to our internal resources by extrernal parties, not uncommon. However, just as we do internally, there is a natural progression of developing a set of requirements from draft through agreed and approved in collaboration with these external parties.

Internally during this development phase, we capture our requirements in RRC and render a document that is emailed securely for their review.  Currently (non-RRC), this is supported using the Word track changes as the document is updated and exchanged. 

Using the new RRC approach, we've discussed whether this could be addressed using CSV import and/or ReqIF.  If we have them capture their comments in Excel, include the Artefact ID together with their comments, is it possible to import and attach these comments using either CSV import or ReqIF?

Assuming CSV import can't do this directly, could we develop a pre-process script to reformat into ReqIF?

2 answers

Most liked answers ↑|Newest answers|Oldest answers

0
permanent link
Kirk Grotjohn (1.2k●3) | answered Feb 01 '13, 6:41 p.m.
JAZZ DEVELOPER
Joel, hopefully somebody from dev will give a more authoritative answer, but I'm guessing not.  If that's the case, I'd suggest opening an enhancement request for offline commenting support.  Just curious, would it be adequate to upload the comments in a separate artifact and link it to the artifact being reviewed?  I still don't think there would be a way to automate this (upload and link), but this would probably be easier to do than uploading  comments *as comments* on the associated artifacts. 
Comments
Joel Million commented Feb 04 '13, 9:24 a.m.

While I agree this is plausible, I would be concerned about mixing concepts, where we teach the teams to look for comments in the Comments panel but sometimes comments may also be found in the Links panel.  Plus, seeing an artefact type in the Create Artifact menu called "Comment" or possibly having them show up on the Dashboard as "changed requirements" rather than "Recent Comments" would be tricky to talk around.  It seems to get messy in a hurry.

But, I appreciate the thinking outside the box!  ;-)

0
permanent link
Tom Mutdosch (176●1) | answered Feb 04 '13, 8:47 a.m.
JAZZ DEVELOPER
Hello,

I can speak to the ReqIF scenario.  This can't be done directly with the RRC comments as comments are not part of the ReqIF spec. One solution when using ReqIF workflows is to use attributes record comments.  For instance, you might have an attribute named "OEM Comments" and perhaps another for "Supplier Comments".  These attributes are then used to add comments by various parties.  Since these are simply attributes, they are handled inherently in ReqIF (or CSV) exchange.  It works well when exchanging requirements, although you don't get the threaded conversations as are possible with native RRC comments.

Tom
Comments
Joel Million commented Feb 04 '13, 9:09 a.m. | edited Feb 04 '13, 9:12 a.m.

Are there any limitations on "string" attribute types, similar to what we have experienced with Excel (256-char limit per cell)?  Further, would we have to specify that this attribute not include any imbedded commas which could potentially foul-up the import?

Your answer

Register or to post your answer.


Dashboards and work items are no longer publicly available, so some links may be invalid. We now provide similar information through other means. Learn more here.