It's all about the answers!

Ask a question

Work item customization lacks


Fredrik Ivansson Flinta (1621) | asked May 03 '11, 8:34 a.m.
Hi,

working as an ClearQuest designer i must say that RTC disappoints me alot within the field of Work item customization.

Things that i find as a big disadvantage for RTC:
* No functionality to create own "layout presentations", can only use the ones that are out-of-the-box
* Not be available to control where the attributes will be located in the GUI
* Not be available to control the fields length visible in the GUI, which means if you have a slot in the layout which is 1000 pixels long then a "small string" attribute will be 1000 pixels long, but the attribute will only take 250bytes of text....
* No dynamic fields (i know this is coming and is in included in Beta 3 M14)
* No group box
* a lot more but i don't feel to list the all....

Functionally like "screen capture"?!?!! feels like more important to roll-out than more flexible work-item customization.....

It feels like I and our orginization is very unique because i cant find any one else experencing the same things, is everybody happy with the templates,presentations,work item types etc that comes out-of-the-box?

I personally thinks that ClearQuest is more powerful than RTC for the moment within the customization area.

I have developed alot of applications for various areas of use in ClearQuest, i find it very tedious todo the same in RTC. :(

/Fredrik Ivansson
- Ericsson AB

6 answers



permanent link
Geoffrey Clemm (30.1k33035) | answered May 03 '11, 11:06 p.m.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER
If you need/prefer the capabilities provided by CQ for some of your
record types, then continuing to use CQ for those record types is
appropriate. You can use RTC for other types of records (like tasks)
that do not require that level of customization, and then use the RTC/CQ
Bridge to create the appropriate relationships between your CQ records
and your RTC work items.

Cheers,
Geoff

On 5/3/2011 8:38 AM, fredrikivan wrote:
Hi,

working as an ClearQuest designer i must say that RTC disappoints me
alot within the field of Work item customization.

Things that i find as a big disadvantage for RTC:
* No functionality to create own "layout presentations", can
only use the ones that are out-of-the-box
* Not be available to control where the attributes will be located in
the GUI
* Not be available to control the fields length visible in the GUI,
which means if you have a slot in the layout which is 1000 pixels
long then a "small string" attribute will be 1000 pixels
long, but the attribute will only take 250bytes of text....
* No dynamic fields (i know this is coming and is in included in Beta
3 M14)
* No group box
* a lot more but i don't feel to list the all....

Functionally like "screen capture"?!?!! feels like more
important to roll-out than more flexible work-item customization.....


It feels like I and our orginization is very unique because i cant
find any one else experencing the same things, is everybody happy
with the templates,presentations,work item types etc that comes
out-of-the-box?

I personally thinks that ClearQuest is more powerful than RTC for the
moment within the customization area.

I have developed alot of applications for various areas of use in
ClearQuest, i find it very tedious todo the same in RTC. :(

/Fredrik Ivansson
- Ericsson AB

permanent link
Fredrik Ivansson Flinta (1621) | answered May 09 '11, 4:36 a.m.
Hi,

sure that could be a a solution but then i still have two databases and two systems to administrate.

/Fredrik

If you need/prefer the capabilities provided by CQ for some of your
record types, then continuing to use CQ for those record types is
appropriate. You can use RTC for other types of records (like tasks)
that do not require that level of customization, and then use the RTC/CQ
Bridge to create the appropriate relationships between your CQ records
and your RTC work items.

Cheers,
Geoff

On 5/3/2011 8:38 AM, fredrikivan wrote:
Hi,

working as an ClearQuest designer i must say that RTC disappoints me
alot within the field of Work item customization.

Things that i find as a big disadvantage for RTC:
* No functionality to create own "layout presentations", can
only use the ones that are out-of-the-box
* Not be available to control where the attributes will be located in
the GUI
* Not be available to control the fields length visible in the GUI,
which means if you have a slot in the layout which is 1000 pixels
long then a "small string" attribute will be 1000 pixels
long, but the attribute will only take 250bytes of text....
* No dynamic fields (i know this is coming and is in included in Beta
3 M14)
* No group box
* a lot more but i don't feel to list the all....

Functionally like "screen capture"?!?!! feels like more
important to roll-out than more flexible work-item customization.....


It feels like I and our orginization is very unique because i cant
find any one else experencing the same things, is everybody happy
with the templates,presentations,work item types etc that comes
out-of-the-box?

I personally thinks that ClearQuest is more powerful than RTC for the
moment within the customization area.

I have developed alot of applications for various areas of use in
ClearQuest, i find it very tedious todo the same in RTC. :(

/Fredrik Ivansson
- Ericsson AB

permanent link
George Jutras (51108) | answered May 09 '11, 11:13 a.m.
Hi,

working as an ClearQuest designer i must say that RTC disappoints me alot within the field of Work item customization.

Things that i find as a big disadvantage for RTC:
* No functionality to create own "layout presentations", can only use the ones that are out-of-the-box
* Not be available to control where the attributes will be located in the GUI
* Not be available to control the fields length visible in the GUI, which means if you have a slot in the layout which is 1000 pixels long then a "small string" attribute will be 1000 pixels long, but the attribute will only take 250bytes of text....
* No dynamic fields (i know this is coming and is in included in Beta 3 M14)
* No group box
* a lot more but i don't feel to list the all....

Functionally like "screen capture"?!?!! feels like more important to roll-out than more flexible work-item customization.....

It feels like I and our orginization is very unique because i cant find any one else experencing the same things, is everybody happy with the templates,presentations,work item types etc that comes out-of-the-box?

I personally thinks that ClearQuest is more powerful than RTC for the moment within the customization area.

I have developed alot of applications for various areas of use in ClearQuest, i find it very tedious todo the same in RTC. :(

/Fredrik Ivansson
- Ericsson AB


Hi! We are seeing the same issues you are so you are not alone. I am not a ClearQuest developer but someone on my team is and they have pointed out the differences.

George Jutras
Fidelity Investments

permanent link
Geoffrey Clemm (30.1k33035) | answered May 09 '11, 2:57 p.m.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER
Yes, ideally, you'd like a single repository to do everything, and so
one certainly should file enhancement requests for any missing
functionality in RTC. But until they are available, the additional RTC
repository should be relatively inexpensive to administer (i.e. the
total administrative load you are experiencing across all of the systems
and databases you are administering should not increase significantly).

Cheers,
Geoff

On 5/9/2011 4:38 AM, fredrikivan wrote:
Hi,

sure that could be a a solution but then i still have two databases
and two systems to administrate.

/Fredrik

gmclemmwrote:
If you need/prefer the capabilities provided by CQ for some of your
record types, then continuing to use CQ for those record types is
appropriate. You can use RTC for other types of records (like
tasks)
that do not require that level of customization, and then use the
RTC/CQ
Bridge to create the appropriate relationships between your CQ
records
and your RTC work items.

Cheers,
Geoff

On 5/3/2011 8:38 AM, fredrikivan wrote:
Hi,

working as an ClearQuest designer i must say that RTC disappoints
me
alot within the field of Work item customization.

Things that i find as a big disadvantage for RTC:
* No functionality to create own "layout presentations",
can
only use the ones that are out-of-the-box
* Not be available to control where the attributes will be located
in
the GUI
* Not be available to control the fields length visible in the GUI,
which means if you have a slot in the layout which is 1000 pixels
long then a "small string" attribute will be 1000 pixels
long, but the attribute will only take 250bytes of text....
* No dynamic fields (i know this is coming and is in included in
Beta
3 M14)
* No group box
* a lot more but i don't feel to list the all....

Functionally like "screen capture"?!?!! feels like more
important to roll-out than more flexible work-item
customization.....


It feels like I and our orginization is very unique because i cant
find any one else experencing the same things, is everybody happy
with the templates,presentations,work item types etc that comes
out-of-the-box?

I personally thinks that ClearQuest is more powerful than RTC for
the
moment within the customization area.

I have developed alot of applications for various areas of use in
ClearQuest, i find it very tedious todo the same in RTC. :(

/Fredrik Ivansson
- Ericsson AB


permanent link
Fredrik Ivansson Flinta (1621) | answered May 10 '11, 3:35 a.m.
Thanks for the respons Geoff :)

In a perfect world that would be great with one repository and thats whats i'n hoping for.
I have multiple different applications (Defect, emergency package handling etc) in CQ that i want to move to RTC in the future but as long as the GUI customization lacks so much in RTC that have to wait.

Maybey i should file some enhancement requests on RTC ;)

cheers
/Fredrik

Yes, ideally, you'd like a single repository to do everything, and so
one certainly should file enhancement requests for any missing
functionality in RTC. But until they are available, the additional RTC
repository should be relatively inexpensive to administer (i.e. the
total administrative load you are experiencing across all of the systems
and databases you are administering should not increase significantly).

Cheers,
Geoff

On 5/9/2011 4:38 AM, fredrikivan wrote:
Hi,

sure that could be a a solution but then i still have two databases
and two systems to administrate.

/Fredrik

gmclemmwrote:
If you need/prefer the capabilities provided by CQ for some of your
record types, then continuing to use CQ for those record types is
appropriate. You can use RTC for other types of records (like
tasks)
that do not require that level of customization, and then use the
RTC/CQ
Bridge to create the appropriate relationships between your CQ
records
and your RTC work items.

Cheers,
Geoff

On 5/3/2011 8:38 AM, fredrikivan wrote:
Hi,

working as an ClearQuest designer i must say that RTC disappoints
me
alot within the field of Work item customization.

Things that i find as a big disadvantage for RTC:
* No functionality to create own "layout presentations",
can
only use the ones that are out-of-the-box
* Not be available to control where the attributes will be located
in
the GUI
* Not be available to control the fields length visible in the GUI,
which means if you have a slot in the layout which is 1000 pixels
long then a "small string" attribute will be 1000 pixels
long, but the attribute will only take 250bytes of text....
* No dynamic fields (i know this is coming and is in included in
Beta
3 M14)
* No group box
* a lot more but i don't feel to list the all....

Functionally like "screen capture"?!?!! feels like more
important to roll-out than more flexible work-item
customization.....


It feels like I and our orginization is very unique because i cant
find any one else experencing the same things, is everybody happy
with the templates,presentations,work item types etc that comes
out-of-the-box?

I personally thinks that ClearQuest is more powerful than RTC for
the
moment within the customization area.

I have developed alot of applications for various areas of use in
ClearQuest, i find it very tedious todo the same in RTC. :(

/Fredrik Ivansson
- Ericsson AB


permanent link
Geoffrey Clemm (30.1k33035) | answered May 10 '11, 11:32 a.m.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER
Yes, please do submit requests for any enhancements that you would like
to see (and please indicate their importance for you via the "severity"
field).

And note that many of those enhancements have been filed (and some as
you noted below, are actively being worked on), so make sure to hit the
"find related work items" button, so you can see what is currently going
on in that area.

Cheers,
Geoff

On 5/10/2011 3:38 AM, fredrikivan wrote:
Thanks for the respons Geoff :)

In a perfect world that would be great with one repository and thats
whats i'n hoping for.
I have multiple different applications (Defect, emergency package
handling etc) in CQ that i want to move to RTC in the future but as
long as the GUI customization lacks so much in RTC that have to wait.


Maybey i should file some enhancement requests on RTC ;)

cheers
/Fredrik

gmclemmwrote:
Yes, ideally, you'd like a single repository to do everything, and so

one certainly should file enhancement requests for any missing
functionality in RTC. But until they are available, the additional
RTC
repository should be relatively inexpensive to administer (i.e. the

total administrative load you are experiencing across all of the
systems
and databases you are administering should not increase
significantly).

Cheers,
Geoff

On 5/9/2011 4:38 AM, fredrikivan wrote:
Hi,

sure that could be a a solution but then i still have two databases
and two systems to administrate.

/Fredrik

gmclemmwrote:
If you need/prefer the capabilities provided by CQ for some of your
record types, then continuing to use CQ for those record types is
appropriate. You can use RTC for other types of records (like
tasks)
that do not require that level of customization, and then use the
RTC/CQ
Bridge to create the appropriate relationships between your CQ
records
and your RTC work items.

Cheers,
Geoff

On 5/3/2011 8:38 AM, fredrikivan wrote:
Hi,

working as an ClearQuest designer i must say that RTC disappoints
me
alot within the field of Work item customization.

Things that i find as a big disadvantage for RTC:
* No functionality to create own "layout presentations",
can
only use the ones that are out-of-the-box
* Not be available to control where the attributes will be located
in
the GUI
* Not be available to control the fields length visible in the GUI,
which means if you have a slot in the layout which is 1000 pixels
long then a "small string" attribute will be 1000 pixels
long, but the attribute will only take 250bytes of text....
* No dynamic fields (i know this is coming and is in included in
Beta
3 M14)
* No group box
* a lot more but i don't feel to list the all....

Functionally like "screen capture"?!?!! feels like more
important to roll-out than more flexible work-item
customization.....


It feels like I and our orginization is very unique because i cant
find any one else experencing the same things, is everybody happy
with the templates,presentations,work item types etc that comes
out-of-the-box?

I personally thinks that ClearQuest is more powerful than RTC for
the
moment within the customization area.

I have developed alot of applications for various areas of use in
ClearQuest, i find it very tedious todo the same in RTC. :(

/Fredrik Ivansson
- Ericsson AB


Your answer


Register or to post your answer.