It's all about the answers!

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

×12,005
×10,964
×5,940
×3,954

question asked: Jun 17 '14, 7:41 p.m.
question was seen: 5,510 times
last updated: Jun 19 '14, 11:43 a.m.

Related questions

Use RQM Importer linked to existing requirement based on a XLS column

0
Harry Koehnemann (301●2●52●38) | asked Jun 17 '14, 7:41 p.m.
We have existing requirements and want to import test cases that link to those requirements.  The link data already exists and we do NOT want to manually select the requirements for each imported test case.  We would prefer to include the requirement reference as a column in the Excel sheet and have the link automatically created.  

The EQM Excel import document (below) seem to imply that we can link to existing requirements, but the link is created manually on import.  And it fails for >500 requirements which is way too few for practical purposes.

Is there a syntax to create the link from an column?   I've tried using the artifact URL and played with different options on the "testcase.requirement=" line, but no luck.

Or, is there a way to NOT recreate the requirement on import?  When I re-run the "TeastPlanwith TestCases linked to requirements" example, the test cases are updated on successive runs, but the requirements are always recreated.  Not sure why, as the docs say "Note, if an artifact exists with the same external ID, it is updated".  The requirements line HAS an external ID (XSLArtifactId) as IS recreated while the test case does NOT have an external ID and is NOT recreated - opposite from what the document says:

https://jazz.net/wiki/bin/view/Main/RQMExcelWordImporter

And, has anyone tried this these examples with DOORS/DWA and not just DNG?

Any help greatly appreciated!

Accepted answer

1
permanent link
Don Yang (7.7k●21●114●139) | answered Jun 18 '14, 7:33 a.m.
Harry

There is no existing feature to implement "Use RQM Importer linked to existing requirement based on a XLS column" currently. Some discussions on this feature is on going and proposal is to add a new keyword for existing requirement's title(suppose this tile is unique). However, if you have hundreds of requirements, the efforts to put those titles into the xls file in order to run "testcase.requirement=xxx"  is not less than specifying the existing requirements through UI which is currently available. Therefore this approach is still under discussion and it is unclear it will benefit to the users.
What is your use case and do you have any thoughts any possible approach of adding the new keyword?

For now, DOORS requirement is not supported in ExcelImporter. This is under discussion in this workitem:
https://jazz.net/jazz02/web/projects/Rational%20Quality%20Manager#action=com.ibm.team.workitem.viewWorkItem&id=80615
(an enhancement workitem)
Harry Koehnemann selected this answer as the correct answer

One other answer

Most liked answers ↑|Newest answers|Oldest answers

0
permanent link
Harry Koehnemann (301●2●52●38) | answered Jun 18 '14, 7:56 p.m.
Thanks for the quick response Dan.

There are several use cases here.  First, most customers use DOORS for requirements (and will for some time to come), so not supporting DWA is a disappointment (I thought OSLC was *standard* API!!??).  

In general, customers already have their test cases related to requirements in some form.  Test cases might be in DOORS and linked to requirements.  Or in Word with a manual trace by requirement ID to the requirement in whatever - Word, DOORS.  And there are lots of these requirements and test cases - not 5 like the provided example.  We want to export the test cases with the requirement id and then be able to import and link them.  This allows us to:
  • Import where requirements are already in place.  Customers are considering RQM, not RQM + DNG.  Having to also import requirements to trace makes no sense since they already have  requirements where the want them.  This is the norm, not the exception.
  • import in steps.  If we do want to import requirements and tests, we can do so incrementally - some requirements, some more tests, etc.  The XLS example has 5 requirements and 5 test cases.  I think it would be problematic in a real environment to produce a single XLS file where there are 10000s requirements and test cases organized across different documents, DOORS modules, etc.  I want to export each source separately and import it, not make a big bang import.
In this particular case, customer is moving from test cases in DOORS and considering RQM (and other options).  A selling point would be a simple migration into RQM - export from DOORS, include any links to DOORS objects, import into RQM w/ OSLC links.  But it looks like we are not close. 

Here's an Innovate presentation that did something similar where they had to perform their own scripting:
http://public.dhe.ibm.com/software/dw/techbriefings/presentations/innovate/sanjose/Customer_Speaker_Accuray.pdf 
Comments
Don Yang commented Jun 18 '14, 10:19 p.m. | edited Jun 18 '14, 10:19 p.m.

Thanks Harry for the detailed use case. The points on DOORS requirements are valid and technically it seems that it is achievable as per the above enhancement workitem. I am not involved in any discussions for that enhancement, hence not sure what stage they are in. You may want to make some comments in that workitem so that it could help to move forward.
 We are currently discussing on how to enhance the existing feature for RQM+DNG to link test case with existing DNG requirements and it is good point that we can export DNG requirements to csv and we will see how we may be able to link the test case to the exported requirements from the exported info. Thanks for that.

Harry Koehnemann commented Jun 19 '14, 11:43 a.m.

Thanks Don.  I really appreciate the information and will comment on the enhancement work item.  All the best. 

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.