It's all about the answers!

Ask a question

Multiple Planned for value for a single Work Item RTC


Hugo Troyan (11) | asked Jul 29, 7:35 a.m.

Hello,

I query Work Items using the "Planned For" attribute for reporting. Recently, I have multiple components and it happens I accept change sets from an other component in order to reuse work, but this action have 2 cases:

  • If the accepted change set doesn't create a conflict, then the change set is directly accepted.
  • If the accepted change set create a conflict, then you must merge and create a new Work Item to relate your merge to.

The thing is, my other components can have a different iteration than the orignal component (of course the Work Item can be old enough to be in a different iteration), and when I query my Work Items using the "Planned For" attribute, the accepted change sets with no new Work Item are not displayed.
This is logic, but I would like to have the Work Items with the change sets used in different component, displayed in both queries (old and new one) for my reports.

Do you know if you can set multiple values to the attribute "Planned For" or if you have a workaround other than using tags ?

Thanks a lot.

2 answers



permanent link
Ralph Schoon (56.8k23642) | answered Jul 29, 7:59 a.m.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER
Planned for is heavily integrated into the UI with various capabilities.
You can add a custom attribute of type iteration, but that would have no integration with anything.

I also need to mention that it does not make any sense to do it this way. One work item is one work item. And one work item can have only one owner, can only be planned for one iteration.

If you want your process make sense, I would suggest to create another work item if the change set or part of the work must be planned for another iteration.

permanent link
Geoffrey Clemm (29.5k23035) | answered Jul 29, 1:55 p.m.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER

The semantics of PlannedFor is "the iteration in which the change sets for this work item will be created".   This is important because the estimated cost of creating those change sets (a property of the work item) will then be assigned to that iteration, and the FiledAgainst property will indicate which team will be doing the work.


It appears that for your report you want "work items whose changes will be added in this iteration".   For that report, you cannot used PlannedFor ... you could either use tags, or create your own multi-valued iteration property.  But note that this report would not tell you which team is supposed to be doing the work ... unless you are assuming that the same team that created the change sets would be delivering the change sets to the other streams.

To provide more guidance, you would need to explain what exactly is the purpose of this report (e.g., how it will be used by your development teams).


Comments
Ralph Schoon commented Jul 29, 5:24 p.m. | edited Jul 29, 5:24 p.m.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER
Sorry, I have to disagree.  The planned for attribute of a work item is for when the work item is planned for to be done. The change set linked to it has nothing to do with that, It is a proof and documentation at best what has been done to finish the work item.

There is a serious problem with coming up with all kind of ridiculous process interpretations that often end in "Requirement" requests that make little sense. This is similar. Someone starts interpreting the logic the tool was designed for upside down.


Geoffrey Clemm commented Jul 30, 12:18 a.m.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER

We will just have to agree to disagree then.  If the work to be done is to create a change set (which appears to be the case here, based on the question being asked), then the change set is the work to be done.   It is very common for customers to say "I need this feature applied to these other three streams", and then they look for a way to make that statement, and verify that it has been done.   I am not positive that this is what Hugo was trying to do (thus my request for a clarification on the report that he needs), but that's what it sounds like.


Ralph Schoon commented Jul 30, 5:25 a.m.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER

I am happy to agree to disagree, Geoff! 


Geoffrey Clemm commented Jul 30, 9:33 a.m.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER

Me as well!   We almost always agree on everything, so having even a minor disagreement is always interesting :-). 


Hugo Troyan commented 2 days ago
Please know I've read your answer right since you posted them and we are currently discussing process with my teams. To start I thank you for your time.

So far, we use Work Item as a work to be done and the Planned For attribute indicates when it must be done. But as I said we are discussing process and take into account everything both of you said !

I'll get back to you as soon as the brainstorming is over.

Your answer


Register or to post your answer.