Need to create one or more layout slots(Links), where each layout slots has to uniquely represent each work item type
Hi,
I have a use case, where I need to create separate layout slots (Links), Where each layout slots (Links) has to uniquely represent the workitems of specific workitem type.
eg:
Create a tab with 'Link Layout' and create two sections.
Section 1 - Title : 'Task reference' , Slot: 'Links'
Presentation - Need to have provision for only adding, editing and removing work item type - Task
Section 2 - Tile : 'Defect reference', Slot: 'Links'
Presentation - Need to have provision for only adding, editing and removing work item type - Defect.
For doing this activity, Do I have to extend any of the existing java API's related non-attribute presentation - links/references and modify the filter type of that to display only the specific item.
Note: Took Clear Quest tool as a reference. Where we have this provision of adding record types separately to a record(separate area for each record type under a tab).
Couldn't find much help about this. Kindly suggest me some solutions.
Thanks.
Accepted answer
As you can see in in https://rsjazz.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/using-reference-presentations-to-create-links-and-show-linked-work-items-in-rtc/ the configuration of the reference presentation is per reference/link type. If you want to have more, you would have to write a custom editor presentation. I have always avoided to do that. You can find links to a description here: https://rsjazz.wordpress.com/interesting-links/ by searching for "Editor Presentation" in the web page e.g. https://jazz.net/wiki/bin/view/Main/ContributingAttributePresentationsV2 .
One other answer
I have described this presentation type in https://rsjazz.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/using-reference-presentations-to-create-links-and-show-linked-work-items-in-rtc/ . Other than configuring the presentation, there is nothing you can do to further customize it.
Comments
Vignesh ramamoorthy Muniyandy
Jun 27 '17, 4:40 a.m.Hi Ralph Schoon,
Thanks for your update. Based on your comment. I reframed the question. I hope it could be much more clear now.