Pre Conditions and Follow ups in DOORS Next Generation 6.0
Hi,
I have been working with a team that required linking of defects (in CCM) to certain requirements (in DOORS Next Generation). This worked fine until the testers started logging defects against requirements that are still in "Draft" state. The new requirement is now to stop the testers from logging defects against requirements, unless they are in approved state.
I have been looking around and reading on the Pre-Conditions and follow ups in CCM, and this seems like it isnt possible. I have also looked within DOORS NG to see if this restriction can be enforced, but I can't seem to figure out if this is even possible.
If this is not possible, what work arounds could be implemented to get this sorted.
Thanks,
Alick
I have been working with a team that required linking of defects (in CCM) to certain requirements (in DOORS Next Generation). This worked fine until the testers started logging defects against requirements that are still in "Draft" state. The new requirement is now to stop the testers from logging defects against requirements, unless they are in approved state.
I have been looking around and reading on the Pre-Conditions and follow ups in CCM, and this seems like it isnt possible. I have also looked within DOORS NG to see if this restriction can be enforced, but I can't seem to figure out if this is even possible.
If this is not possible, what work arounds could be implemented to get this sorted.
Thanks,
Alick
Accepted answer
This seems like a process issue.
Your test team may want to start writing test cases while requirements are in draft, but they should not finalize/approve a test case until the requirement is in approved state. A view of requirements and their state should be examined when reviewing test cases before approving them.
Your test team may want to start writing test cases while requirements are in draft, but they should not finalize/approve a test case until the requirement is in approved state. A view of requirements and their state should be examined when reviewing test cases before approving them.
Comments
Hi Daniel,
Thank you for your prompt response.
I agree with you that this issue is actually a process issue. However, the team had been requesting for restrictions/preconditions to be enforced for members of the team that could have possibly overlooked process or just ended up linking the 2 artifacts.
I will sit down with them and talk them through the process.
Thank you very much.
Alick
One other answer
FYI DOORS NG V601 introduces administratively-defined link constraints, but I as I recall in this release they apply to links between RM artifacts (not, for example, to links to work items).
Also some clients create team "quality check" dashboards that reveal incomplete or illegal states among linked artifacts. For example, you should not have a test result for requirement in draft state (or have an approved test). You can use queries within each application, or (if you are on 5.0.2 or later: the Jazz Reporting Service report builder) or (if you are 6.0.0 or later: RELM) to create these cross-tool dashboard widgets.
Also some clients create team "quality check" dashboards that reveal incomplete or illegal states among linked artifacts. For example, you should not have a test result for requirement in draft state (or have an approved test). You can use queries within each application, or (if you are on 5.0.2 or later: the Jazz Reporting Service report builder) or (if you are 6.0.0 or later: RELM) to create these cross-tool dashboard widgets.