Do you think multiple profiles are needed to use suspect linking?
One answer
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
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)
Comments
Donald Nong
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
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER Aug 14 '15, 5:43 p.m.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.