It's all about the answers!

Ask a question

What would be a good approach to limit valid associated Planned For releases?


Andy Jewell (24225669) | asked Dec 08 '14, 1:20 p.m.
In our source code deliver to stream operations behavior, we currently require developers to associate work items to an iteration, i.e.:

Require iteration

This works good but we want to increase the restriction to only allow assocation to an active iteration.  Unfortunately, we have multiple active iterations and as far as I can tell there can only be one "current iteration"

I suspect there is some sort of custom validation I could write?  Could someone point me in the right direction?  I don't want to get into creating multiple teams and team timelines and some sort of three levels of redirection in order to define multiple current iterations.  I think I just want to learn more about custom validation and not sure where to look first.

Comments
1
sam detweiler commented Dec 08 '14, 3:59 p.m.

can u explain more 'active' iterations? cause I think you can have only one per timeline, its the one that is occurring right now (time based)

I think the javascript extensions do not support manipulation iterations.. but the java server side extensions do..

see https://jazz.net/library/article/1000


Andy Jewell commented Dec 08 '14, 4:18 p.m.

 i think you're right about only one current iteration per timeline.  My reference to "active" iterations was to my requirements, not to any capability that I was aware of.  In terms of explanation, we have multiple active iterations (which we actually use more like a release) going on at any point in time.  This is why I wanted to find a way to deal with multiple "current" iterations.


Thanks for your link, will check out server extensions.  I've done quite a bit with the plain java client, the Eclipse framework scares me a bit but I'll read through it... ;)


Andy Jewell commented Dec 08 '14, 4:32 p.m. | edited Dec 08 '14, 4:32 p.m.

I guess to look at it, I have another restriction since I don't really have access to the server.  Our server is managed by an enterprise team and making changes to it would either be impossible or extremely slow (administratively).  In scratching around I ran into the possibility of using an Advisor.  Will read more into that though I'm worried that would also be a server-based solution.

Accepted answer


permanent link
Ralph Schoon (60.7k33643) | answered Dec 09 '14, 2:51 a.m.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER
Hi Andy,

Sam's suggestion is actually to create an advisor. The Extensions workshop is just explaining a follow up action, but advisors are pretty much the same. Here is an example based on the Extension Workshop: http://rsjazz.wordpress.com/2014/05/26/only-owner-can-close-workitem-advisor/

Now, there are server side advisors, but there are also client side advisors. They would need to be installed into any Eclipse client. They are needed, if the data required is only available on the client (like if there are unused imports). I would usually prefer a server side advisor if possible. But in your case a client side advisor could be the solution.

I'd check with the team running the servers, if there is any chance to deploy on the server, however.
Andy Jewell selected this answer as the correct answer

Comments
Andy Jewell commented Dec 09 '14, 11:42 a.m.

Thank you for the link, that article is packed with information, I'll need to digest slowly but I'm encouraged by the step-by-step instructions.  Thanks!

Your answer


Register or to post your answer.