It's all about the answers!

Ask a question

Do you think multiple profiles are needed to use suspect linking?


Kalena Blue (3614) | asked Aug 13 '15, 12:21 p.m.
edited Sep 21 '15, 6:15 a.m. by Geoffrey Clemm (29.5k23035)
Are you an user who thinks you need to create multiple profiles in order to use suspect linking?  If so, please let us know because we would like to meet with you to discuss and understand your use case and thought process.  Thanks!

Comments
Donald Nong commented Aug 14 '15, 12:26 a.m. | edited Sep 21 '15, 6:16 a.m.

Not quite sure if you are offering or seeking help. If you are seeking help, see this post for a detailed use case.
https://jazz.net/forum/questions/199565/whats-the-recommended-approach-to-setting-suspicion-profiles-crossing-rdng-pas


Geoffrey Clemm commented Aug 14 '15, 5:43 p.m.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER

Kalena is looking for user input on this question, in order to help the product team decide how important that feature is, and what it would be used for.

One answer



permanent link
Carole Schwarz (3613) | answered Aug 14 '15, 2:31 p.m.
While I don't know if absolutely necessary, we use multiple profiles today (we are still on 4.x though, not sure if that would change when we update).  The reason we do this today is that different users care about different artifact changes.  For example, our business folks care about changes between business rules and use cases or stories, while our agile teams care about changes between stories, embedded functional requirements, and work items).

 From an enterprise perspective, a business unit wants to monitor for impact analysis (changes to rules that may affect multiple applications) whereas they do not necessarily care about discrete functional requirements for a single application and the changes between them.

Hope that made sense :).

Comments
Geoffrey Clemm commented Sep 21 '15, 6:52 a.m.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER

Thanks for the feedback, Carole.   Note that once versioning is activated for a project area, the "what has changed" use case is primarily handled by the "compare" operation (comparing your current configuration with some previous state, specified by a baseline), while the suspicion/validity mechanism is primarily used for "propagating change" (making sure that when one artifact is modified, that related artifacts are appropriately updated to be consistent with the new state of the modified artifact).   But if "compare" is used for the "what has changed use case", this does imply that you'd like to effectively have "compare profiles", i.e. indicate what kind of changes you want to filter out of the comprehensive compare report.
I've filed https://jazz.net/jazz03/resource/itemName/com.ibm.team.workitem.WorkItem/100539 (for DNG) and https://jazz.net/jazz02/resource/itemName/com.ibm.team.workitem.WorkItem/142115 (for RQM)

Your answer


Register or to post your answer.