It's all about the answers!

Ask a question

RTC SCM rule for mandatory asset creation


Halil BAHADIR (3321920) | asked Jun 15 '12, 5:52 p.m.
JAZZ DEVELOPER
Is it possible to add a rule to RTC, If  code asset is NOT created in RAM, you can not Deliver it to the Stream?  I thought we can do it by personal build capabilities of RTC, calling ANT script, which search the RAM if asset is created before or not. I don't know RAM ANT tasks has these capabilities if not we can call java code using RAM API. Do you think it is meaningful or any other suggestion?

regards,
halil bg

Accepted answer


permanent link
Ralph Schoon (59.0k23642) | answered Jun 20 '12, 4:50 a.m.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER
Halil,

you can create pre conditions and followup actions in RTC. You would want a precondition. Here is a workshop that helps as a starter: https://jazz.net/library/article/634 . The example is a followup action. However the code is very similar to what you want to do. However, you would have to use the java APi to search RAM for the asset.

My concern would be, is the call to RAM quick enough?
Halil BAHADIR selected this answer as the correct answer

Comments
Gili Mendel commented Jul 13 '12, 11:51 a.m.
JAZZ DEVELOPER

A RAMSession (for the Java API) will, for the first time, bring down/cache various repo Information (e.g., types, commuities...) ... so if you through away the session every time, Java is not the right approach... you can use Java/REST for a simple search ... that will be very quick.

4 other answers



permanent link
Halil BAHADIR (3321920) | answered Jun 21 '12, 11:26 a.m.
JAZZ DEVELOPER
Thank you Ralph..I've developed some batch create asset / relationship codes using API it seems ok from the performance perspective..3000 asset relation entry in (finding both asset and then relating them) 27 min..But this machine is in test environment. I think It will not be a problem doing it with follow-up action.



permanent link
Ralph Schoon (59.0k23642) | answered Jun 21 '12, 12:00 p.m.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER
Hi Halil,

you should definitely try.

The main question is: how quick is the operation you need to do to check because it blocks the UI.

If you do a precondition that prevents from the state change, the user will have to wait for searching like 5 minutes - bad. The extension would block the UI thread and the user gets annoyed. You want something fast. The same applies for followup actions. Maybe there is a way to uncouple this, if the operation time is unbearable. Trigger the search. The search runs offline and updates the work item - e.g. some attribute the user can't update (read-only) the next state change can only be done if the attribute hasa certain value.

If it is fast enough, you want to do a precondition, that checks if the state changes if the state change is allowed.

permanent link
Halil BAHADIR (3321920) | answered Jun 21 '12, 3:43 p.m.
JAZZ DEVELOPER
Yes we need to try it..What about adding follow up or precondition to deliver operation, instead of work item operations..you don't want to wait a while for work item state change but u can wait (of course not 5 min) more for deliver operation.



permanent link
Ralph Schoon (59.0k23642) | answered Jun 21 '12, 3:55 p.m.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER
Hi Halil,

that would probably make more sense, since you want to block the delivery anyway. Right?

Your answer


Register or to post your answer.