Implementing RTC in a legacy CC/CQ environment
Hello - I am currently working on implementing RTC as a supplement/pilot to our current UCM Enabled ClearQuest / ClearCase implementation, and was wondering what limitations we may run into attempting to run our legacy environment in conjunction with RTC (plus the CC and CQ connectors). The plan is to pilot RTC to a subset of users and have them interact with current environment through RTC, while maintaining the environment as it stands today for the remaining users.
My current understanding is that the following are key limitations: a. Our CQ record types require scripted "hooks." Since RTC does not support this functionality, use of the CQ connector would be limited. This includes basic tasks such as viewing record types, and would not allow for workflow changes. b. The CC Connector has no integration with CQ Activities as they exist today. We would need to either check in /out elements in RTC with no activity or use RTC work items. Given the limitations of point a), checkin / checkout functionality could not be utilized. Please confirm if these limitations are correct, if other limitations exist, and if there are alternatives to rolling out such a solution. Thanks. |
6 answers
Shelby,
My interpretation of the first limitation, which may not be correct, is does RTC have a similar hook-like mechanism which has functionality that restricts what records a user can view or restricts who can perform a state change. RTC has something called behaviors, which defines preconditions and follow-up actions for individual operations, https://jazz.net/jazzdocs/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.team.concert.doc/helpindex_rtc.htm. Currently, I don't think read access can be denied to anything. If I'm totally off on this interpretation, please provide more information on what you understand to be a limitation. Lorelei Jazz CQ Connector Team |
Geoffrey Clemm (30.1k●3●30●35)
| answered Jun 24 '08, 4:01 p.m.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER
shelbyph wrote:
My current understanding is that the following are key limitations: Lorelei started a thread responding to discuss limitation a, so I'll focus this response on b. b. The CC Connector has no integration with CQ Activities as they The CC Connector does have an integration with CQ Activities. In particular, for a CQ-enabled UCM project, a CQ activity is required to bringover changes from RTC to ClearCase, so the CC Connector automatically creates the necessary CQ activity when bringing over the changes). In addition, the CC Connector adds to the description field of this CQ activity the names of the RTC workitems that are associated with the changes that have been brought over. If you are also using the CQ Connector, then you can have the CQ Connector automatically create RTC workitems for the CQ activities that you want to be worked on in RTC, and then those CQ activities will be identified in the description field of the CQ activity created by the CC Connector. Please confirm if these limitations are correct, if other limitations We have tried to document the known limitations in the dynamic help of all RTC clients (Managing change and releases > Configuring and using the ClearCase Connector > Known limitations and workarounds in this release). There also is a tech-note on deploying the connectors on the web: <https> |
Shelby, Lorelei. Let me explain in more detail about what I am referring to as "hooks" in CQ. Our current implementation has a series of custom Perl scripts that are run based on the record type and action performed on an activity. For example, the ability to send emails to users based on some action (for example, closing an activity, or assigning a user to an activity) or the ability to generate multiple new activities from within one activity (for example, creating a Peer Review activity with many associated Review Activities). These "hooks" exist in custom built scripts to control the behavior of the system based on user actions by record type. Is this type of functionality currently supported? |
|
Geoff, some follow ups:
For this automatic creation of CQ activities from within RTC via the connector, is it possible to choose the record type of the activity? When this activity is created, will the CQ "hooks" mentioned in my above post be triggered?
This statement seems a bit recursive. Let me make sure I understand. The RTC CQ connector will synchronize with CQ and create new Work Items based on Activities within CQ. Then, when the CC Connector creates new Activities in CQ (as mentioned above), it will reference the CQ Activities that were synched as new Work Items. Not sure I see what the benefit is there. Could you please clarify? |
Briefly, the Process component of Jazz allows one to define "preconditions" and "follow-up actions" for a process-enabled operation (such as saving a work item). Preconditions execute before the operation and can prevent execution of the operation, and follow-up actions execute after the operation. Currently, preconditions and follow-up actions must be implemented as Java code, extending either the Team Concert client or Jazz Team Server. Furthermore, such extensions are not "officially" supported in the RTC 1.0 release, but users are welcome to experiment with them to learn the capabilities of the platform. For more information on the Process component in general and on customization, see https://jazz.net/learn/LearnItem.jsp?href=content/docs/process/index.html John Jazz CQ Connector Team |
|
Geoffrey Clemm (30.1k●3●30●35)
| answered Jun 25 '08, 5:07 p.m.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER gmclemmwrote: The type of the CQ activity that is created is always UCMUtilityActivity, a record type that is predefined by the CQ UCM package. If you have hooks associated with that record type, they will fire. If you are also using the CQ Connector, then you can have the CQ The benefit is that this information lets you know (by looking at information in CC/CQ) what Work Items were associated with the changes that were brought over from RTC to ClearCase. For details on this, please see sections 9 and 10 of the word document attached to workitem 58304 (this is an article that will soon be posted to jazz.net). Cheers, Geoff |
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.