An RRC Contributor license is sufficient to modify an artifact when permissions are controlled by team role ?
Trying to control permissions via Team role, we found that we don't need an RRC Analyst licence to modify an RRC artifact, i.e. to write to an artifact:
Contributor Licence + Project role Commenter + inherited permissions for Team role "GAP Co-Author" ==> Allow modifications to an artifact ==> R/W Privileges
Is this by IBM design (i.e. we should go ahead and only use Contributor licenses for Project members in this Team role) or is it a loop-hole (i.e. we should actually use Analyst licenses for Project members in this Team role, to avoid issues later with upgrades/updates when IBM decides to close the loop-hole).
Accepted answer
Does the the user also have a Quality Professional license or CLM practitioner license? If not, then a user with only a RRC Contributor license should not be able to edit RM artifacts. They should be able to comment, participate in review & approval artifacts, create/edit work items ... but not edit RM artifacts. This would be a bug.
Comments
You were right. My testing -- taking the QP license off myself, and the edit button does not even show up greyed out -- corroborated that. So the RQM QP license allows writing to an RRC artifact !
Yes and the reason for this is that testing teams often need to write additional lower-level requirements in a form that enables them to test a system sufficiently and still have good requirements-test reporting.