It's all about the answers!

Ask a question

Adding fields


Sterling Ferguson-II (1.6k8281269) | asked Mar 25 '09, 1:29 p.m.
Hello all,

Sorry to sound like such a newbie, but how do I add a field to RQM? I would like to add Req-type to Requirements to separate types of requirements:

Administrative
Functional
etc...

thanks...

14 answers



permanent link
zhe leonard (1632) | answered Mar 25 '09, 3:02 p.m.
JAZZ DEVELOPER
Do you mean to create category type for different type of the requirement, and then associate each requirement to the appropriate type?

permanent link
Sterling Ferguson-II (1.6k8281269) | answered Mar 25 '09, 3:07 p.m.
Do you mean to create category type for different type of the requirement, and then associate each requirement to the appropriate type?


Thanks for responding...

What I would like to do is create a new field/pick list choice called Req-Type that has values that I could create such as those listed above.

I would then query on Administrative requirements, or Functional Requirements.

Yes, I could tag these Requirements with Administrative or Functional, but we already have like ten things in there already...

permanent link
Helen Lozoraitis (60624) | answered Mar 25 '09, 6:06 p.m.
JAZZ DEVELOPER
Hi. It sounds like what you are asking to do is to customize the Requirement work item by adding a field. There is a process for doing that through the RTC Client. HOWEVER, I have to make a disclaimer that RQM does not yet officially support the work item customization process. Though you can certainly give it a try to see how it would work, keeping in mind that the customized fields would only show up in the work item UI and not in the RQM artifact view pages. Does that help?

permanent link
Sterling Ferguson-II (1.6k8281269) | answered Mar 26 '09, 2:52 p.m.
Hi. It sounds like what you are asking to do is to customize the Requirement work item by adding a field. There is a process for doing that through the RTC Client. HOWEVER, I have to make a disclaimer that RQM does not yet officially support the work item customization process. Though you can certainly give it a try to see how it would work, keeping in mind that the customized fields would only show up in the work item UI and not in the RQM artifact view pages. Does that help?


Hello, thanks again for replying.

Can you clarify "and not in the RQM artifact view pages" please?

With that, when can we expect customization to be a feature of RQM? I would like to point my company from Test Manager, RMT, and CQTM to RQM. We have been "adding fields" to CQTM almost once a month since 2007, so the out-of-box for RQM would need some heavy customization.

Can I write a RFE for support?

(Background, we are not using any Jazz products yet, just evaluating RQM.)

permanent link
Helen Lozoraitis (60624) | answered Mar 26 '09, 6:53 p.m.
JAZZ DEVELOPER
Hi. In the earlier example, I meant that if you added new fields to Requirements using the work item editor, I believe that those values would not show up in the page displayed by selecting Requirements/All Requirements from the RQM main menu.

Which artifacts are you interested in customizing besides Requirements? That will help to answer the question.

You could request enhancements for customization support, but it is a large area so it would probably be best to break it down somewhat. Thanks.

permanent link
Daniel Chirillo (1801623) | answered Mar 28 '09, 11:27 p.m.
Hi Helen,

I just did a very simple test. I modified the process template by adding a WI type (Task-Approve) and a custom String field. The custom string field appears in RTC on the WI Custom tab. In the web client, the new WI type appears in the WI Type dropdown (not surprising) but the Custom tab (which, I assume, based on my quick test, will contain all custom fields added) is not rendered in the browser. Exactly as you warned. :)

I would like to submit an enhancement request that RQM support handling all the customizations that are possible/exposed via the Process Template. Is this too vague/broad?

Cheers,
Dan

permanent link
Helen Lozoraitis (60624) | answered Mar 31 '09, 2:48 p.m.
JAZZ DEVELOPER
Yes, it probably is :)
I'll look to see what we already have submitted in that area; maybe there are some reasonable ways to categorize the customization areas.

permanent link
Sterling Ferguson-II (1.6k8281269) | answered Mar 31 '09, 3:30 p.m.

I would like to submit an enhancement request that RQM support handling all the customizations that are possible/exposed via the Process Template. Is this too vague/broad?

Cheers,
Dan


Thanks Dan,

Actually, that is almost "word-for-word" how I was asked by our pilot users. IT wants to add about 12 new fields for tracking data, and Engineering is asking for TONS of customized fields and pick list choices. And of course they all want to be able to query.

I must say that graphically, this tool is pretty impressive.

permanent link
Daniel Chirillo (1801623) | answered Mar 31 '09, 3:46 p.m.
My guess is that what is exposed via the process template was really meant with RTC in mind as the client

My sense right now is that the biggest bang for my RFE buck would be if the Work Item's Custom tab is added to the web client.

permanent link
Helen Lozoraitis (60624) | answered Apr 02 '09, 6:11 p.m.
JAZZ DEVELOPER
One thing I wanted to add regarding customizations...
You will need to be aware that when RQM is upgraded to a new version, it will overwrite the default RQM process template so any customizations that had been made to that template would be lost. If users want to keep their customizations between versions, then they should make a copy of the RQM process template, and customize that copy instead, then create their projects based off their copy. If changes are made to the default RQM template that they want to apply to their projects, that can be done manually in order not to lose the other customizations.

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.