Does anybody use module context linking?
![]()
Assuming a fairly simple standard requirements architecture where all requirements live in modules and requirements appear once in that 1 module and nowhere else doeas anybody using DNG in this typical manner use module context links?
Most of the consultants and organisations I have canvassed have been of the opinion that base artifact linking is safer since it is better to have important traceability information associated with the artifact directly rather than one layer removed at the module context level.
I instinctively agree with this opinion. It 'feels wrong' to have the links not associated directly with the base artifacts.
The problem is that this approach introduces such awful usability hurdles.
1. Creating links manually is a massive guddle using BA links vs MC links
2. When you follow a BA links you end up at the base artifact with no context. It is much more intuitive for users to end up at the requirement displayed in its module context.
So given this context, does anybody currently use MC linking rather than BA linking and what issues have you encountered if so?
|
4 answers
![]()
Hi Sean
We are currently using MC linking, similar to the example you give. A system requirement module flows down to SW requirement specification (module) and this is (or at least should be) linked with RTC/RQM links in MC. We have the same problem you referred to in a previous question of having a complete mix of BA / MC links that causes us a constant headache. If you have found a way of bulk converting, please let me know. With our simple example, I cannot see why you would use base artifact linking.
So to answer your question. The main headache this mix gives us is through the JRE reporting. For metric reporting I use JRE created widgets to track SW requirement coverage by RQM 'validated by' test case links. I scan each requirement spec (module) for the links and report missing links. If engineers link to the BA, the links are visible in the module (with the customary blue arrow), but do not report as links in the module through JRE reports. I always have the issue of appearing to be missing test cases coverage. The only option I appear to have, is convert all links to MC and everything works well, but this is a labor intensive task if 100's have been done in error.
I have tried creating meaningful JRE metrics by scouring/filtering the BA folders, but I cannot limit reports to specific folders, only to modules or collections. JRE also counts artifacts twice this way. Once in the module and once as the BA.
Modules all the way for me.
|
![]()
Hi!
In my opinion creating MC links is much more user-friendly than creating BA links: we mostly use drag and drop between two windows where the two modules are opened.
Unfortunately it happens that users edit links also via dialogue and then the user is led to BA links. This leads to confusing mixtures are written by other users before.
|
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.