It's all about the answers!

Ask a question

Rigourous Template Definition for RRC

Juan Pablo Soto (1825) | asked Jul 10 '13, 1:33 p.m.
 I have a customer that wants to migrate gently from his mess of 4 different documents files (developed on 4 different tools) to RRC. The idea of the first implementation, along with the tool training, is to maintain all those required documents but on one RRC Artifact, that has to validate at least for the presence of all the required docs in order to allow to end the entry of data in the artifact. 

To me, this could have two approaches and I want to get feedback on which one you think is better or if you think that another way may be better: 

a) To define a special artifact type with the validation of the 4 documents presence embedded 
b) To use a Module that contains the 4 artifacts and some kind of validation in order to achieve the format revision

The idea is to filter this before the revision of the Artifact that is triggered to the people that we want to define because 60-70% of the rejected requirements doesn't even have the full set of required documents and we want to filter that as early as we could. 

So, what do you think guys?  Thanks in advance!!!

Accepted answer

permanent link
Dominic Tulley (38114) | answered Jul 16 '13, 4:32 a.m.
The main problem here is how to automate the validation that you want to achieve.  We don't have much available in the tool as it stands today that can help with this but I think perhaps using links we could do something that would help.

Suppose you have a single artifact to represent the aggregated data from the four documents and then each of the four documents is a separate uploaded artifact (so you have a total of five artifacts).  Then you link the first artifact to each of the uploaded ones using a particular link type (say you create a new link type called "ContainsDocument").
Then, in the grid view, you can add a column that shows the ContainsDocument links and visually, you can check that each artifact has four links (indicating that four documents have been included).

It's not ideal but perhaps that would help?
Juan Pablo Soto selected this answer as the correct answer

2 other answers

permanent link
Robin Bater (3.4k47) | answered Jul 15 '13, 4:46 p.m.
An alternative idea might be to create 4 artifact templates for a single type. Then when you create a new artifact you specify one of the templates to be used during the creation.

For example suppose you have a Use Case artifact type and you create 4 artifact templates - called Use Case informal, Use Case RUP, Use Case Formal and Use case Agile. Each one of the templates can be used in different artifacts.

This idea is assuming that it is ok to have only one type of document per artifact type, if not, then please ignore this suggestion.

permanent link
Juan Pablo Soto (1825) | answered Jul 17 '13, 2:20 p.m.
 Thank you guys for your answers. 
I was on holiday yesterday, so, checking on this today. 
The first approach gives an idea to make the container, but doesn't gives a clear vision on how to check in a fast way for the completion of the request. 
The second one not only solves the "how to group" issue. Also gives a clear idea on how any lazy person can check in just one peek if the needed documents are present or not. 

It could be nice if you guys can explore some validation point in the beginning of the Artifact Definition in order to do more complex Artifacts Creations more easy. 

Thanks a lot! :)

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.