Running Large Reviews in DNG
We have been trying to set up a large review effort in DOORS Next for about 150 modules we received from a partner. We seem to be running into some tool limitations, and are hoping that there may be a better way to do things then we are finding. The primary objective is to review the artifacts in context of the module in which they sit and provide status on the progress that is being made during the review of a module, some of which are very large.
It seems we can create a review of the module itself as one item with one review status, or conduct the review of a collection of all the artifacts in the module. Unfortunately, the review of the collection is executed individually, artifact by artifact in no coherent order, without the module context present on the screen. Extra navigation is required to open the module and find the artifact within the module to gain the context, then return to the review screen to process the review. For modules with a thousand or more artifacts this becomes a very cumbersome method.
What are we missing? Any guidance is greatly appreciated.
|
Accepted answer
Hey Carson,
I tend to review the module as a whole - if you open the module through the reviews panel it opens in read only mode and you have the review toolbar at the top. Any comments you make inside the module during the review also get attached to the review context of the module, and when you Finalise the review they get locked as part of it.
Two small gripes I have with that approach:
- comments against artefacts within the module are linked to the review but do not get shown in the totals on the review panel itself. Makes it hard to see
- comments that aren't resolved before the review is finalised end up getting locked in an open state, so you really need to make sure you resolve them before closing it out (but see point 1 - they can be hard to find!)
Carson Holmes selected this answer as the correct answer
|
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.