Does anybody use module context linking?

Sean F (1.3k●2●52●162) | asked Dec 15 '18, 3:06 p.m.

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

Most liked answers ↑|Newest answers|Oldest answers

permanent link

Nick M (31●1) | answered May 02 '19, 3:09 p.m.

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.

permanent link

Adrian Haw (299●12●42) | answered Dec 16 '18, 7:27 a.m.
edited Dec 16 '18, 12:45 p.m.

Hi Sean

I'm afraid this kind of post is on those subjects your parents warned you to avoid in polite company: religion and politics - this topic combines both of them neatly into one question: modules or base artifacts? For this reason, I ummed and ahed before replying.

Using the forum for this will probably generate a lot of heat and not much light and the discussion could go on for many pages. This is more of a consultancy topic and one where you'd be better talking face-to-face to have a free-flowing discussion/brainstorm to understand the implications of any approach.

Having said that, I don't know who you canvassed but I would be surprised if any of the 'real' end users were doing anything with requirements outside the context of a module unless they are using a pre v6 (pre-modules) version of DOORS NG and have got locked into working/thinking that way in their organization. Anyone coming from 'Classic DOORS' or that has come into DOORS NG with version 6 (and esp if using components and streams) would surely be scratching their heads at anyone not using modules and if using modules that they would also be linking within the context of a module.

Comments

Davyd Norris commented Dec 16 '18, 3:46 p.m.

Then I guess you're going to be surprised :-)

The real world I see is split between - the reasons given being

- half of them were not DOORS users and came from Requisite Pro

- some were DOORS users and learned Modules

- some were DOORS users and were looking for something less rigid

While Modules are good, they aren't the be all and end all, and there are many other approaches that are valid and Modules have also been problematic since their introduction. I've found that base level linking is unavoidable in most larger projects, and is desirable for many reasons. Module level linking is especially useful when you start looking at requiring a context, for example managing concurrent releases or product variants without the significant overhead of Global Config Management.

Adrian Haw commented Dec 17 '18, 3:52 a.m. | edited Dec 17 '18, 3:56 a.m.

See, I told you it was a controversial subject!

It would be useful to hear why you say linking between base artifacts is unavoidable and desirable in larger projects and when you would use requirements without context.

permanent link

Sean F (1.3k●2●52●162) | answered Dec 17 '18, 9:26 a.m.

I guess the pros and cons between BA links vs MC links can get complicated when artifacts are reused between modules.

But take the following simple scenario:-

We have only 2 requirement types User Req and System Reqs.

There is one User Reqs module and one System Reqs module.

All User Reqs appear only once in the User Reqs module

All System reqs appear only once in the System Reqs module

It still somehow feels 'safer' to me to have the links associated with the actual artifacts (just like they were in DOORS Classic objects) rather than indriectly through the module presentation layer.

But this introduces the usability hurdles already mentioned.

It is hard to use 'it just feels safer' as a justification for recommending BA links to DNG users who want to know how best to do linking.

So my question really is:- are there any users out there using MC links in the simple scenario outlined (no artifact re-use) and have you encountered any issues?

One of the annoyances of MC links I have noticed is that traceability views append every link with the repetitive and superfluous (...in module XXXXX) which it would be nice if that could be optionally ditched, but it is only a minor annoyance.

Comments

Adrian Haw commented Dec 17 '18, 9:56 a.m. | edited Dec 17 '18, 10:28 a.m.

Yes. We link exclusively in module context.

I don't understand your comment about DOORS Classic objects "It still somehow feels 'safer' to me to have the links associated with the actual artifacts (just like they were in DOORS Classic objects)". DOORS Classic has objects in modules and you link between objects contained in modules according to the rules defined in link sets. That's what you can (more or less) do in DOORS NG, i.e. link between artifacts in modules.

We do not re-use artifacts between modules. The re-use level is the set of artifacts in the context of a module in a component stream, i.e. a particular version of the set of requirements of a 'thing' (thing being any part of the product BoM) to be designed, developed, tested and delivered.

We do not have issues linking only in a module context because the links are then always context-specific. Links between base artifacts are always applicable, no matter what the context, which does not seem logical to me. At the very least- do not mix Base and Module linking.

Adrian Haw commented Dec 17 '18, 10:23 a.m.

PS: I guess it depends on the underlying model of how you want to manage your requirements and how your users are used to thinking about management of requirements and traceability.

Sean F commented Dec 18 '18, 7:49 a.m.

Thanks for your thoughts Adrian.

I was curious to know if anyone was using MC links as everyone I have asked so far has said they use BA links for everything.

That was the reason for the OP.

permanent link

Christian Winkler (132●16●23) | answered May 08 '19, 10:47 a.m.

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

Register or log in 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.

It's all about the answers!

Related questions

Does anybody use module context linking?

4 answers

Your answer