It's all about the answers!

Ask a question
QuestionsTagsUsersBadges
Guidelines | FAQ
Follow this question
Question details

×11,984
×5,898

question asked: Oct 18 '18, 1:26 a.m.
question was seen: 1,711 times
last updated: Nov 28 '18, 7:27 p.m.

Related questions

DNG - Product Roadmap for Module Context vs Base Artifact

1
1
Sean F (1.3k●2●52●162) | asked Oct 18 '18, 1:26 a.m.

Most of the consultants and organisations I have canvassed have said that they do base artifact linking because it feels safer to have important traceability information associated directly with the artifacts rather than one step removed through the presentation layer of a module.

My gut feeling is that this correct.

However it presents many usability hurdles for users of DNG.

What is the roadmap with this functionality?

Maybe we need the option to be able to have a closer more transparent binding between artifacts and their notional 'position' within their module in the case where artifacts only appear in one module (which is true for 99.9% of module artifacts I think).

Can someone from IBM please shed some light on whether there will be a more transparent approach made available so that users can work in modules where requirements are presented in an organised manner but have all links created at base artifact level or simply not have to be aware of the distinction between a base artifact and a module context artifact (since the distinction is redundant 99% of the time).

This looseness of the current binding between base artifact and module context also has implications for traceability analysis.

When following a link through JRS reporting or RPE we want to be able to query information about the module context of the linked artifact such as its section number and level etc. within its module.

This is not currently possible at all when using Base Artifact links. When using module context links it is possible in RPE but I think it is not possible with JRS.



2 answers

Most liked answers ↑|Newest answers|Oldest answers

0
permanent link
Norman Dignard (356●6●96●177) | answered Oct 18 '18, 8:36 a.m.

 Another problematic issue with DNG's evolvement is the behavior of base vrs module artifacts.

Back in 4.x "artifact reuse" was a noted feature in that you could include the base artifact in a number of modules. On changing the artifact within the context of the module, only that module saw the change to the artifact. if you changed the base artifact, all modules that used it also reflected the change. (At least this was what we were told and did not note any behavior to the contrary.) 
Fast forward to 6X (we're at 6.0.5)  - somewhere between then and now, this changed. In 605 we noted that changing the artifact within a module, changes the base artifact which in turn affects all modules that call it. This was unexpected behavior and troublesome in that it now changes modules unbeknownst to the user. The artifact change may only have been application to the one module.

   

0
permanent link
Hugh Lippincott (19●9) | answered Nov 28 '18, 7:27 p.m.

Those of us who develop in a regulated environment have a clear need for "artifact reuse" in the form of requirements that derive for standards and regulations.  These requirements apply to many products and must be reused identically!.  These artifacts are very important to keep correct/unchanging, until the standard changes, then we need to trace changes to applicable product modules.  

 
How do I keep random users from changing the artifact within a module, and triggering changes across the product line?

Your answer

Register or to post your answer.


Dashboards and work items are no longer publicly available, so some links may be invalid. We now provide similar information through other means. Learn more here.