r6 - 2015-05-27 - 14:26:45 - Main.sbagotYou are here: TWiki >  Deployment Web > DeploymentTroubleshooting > IntegrationsTroubleshooting > IntegrationsTroubleshootingJazzandDOORS > HowToVerifyLinkConsistencyBetweenRQMAndDOORS9

How to verify link consistency between RQM and DOORS 9

Authors: MaeveOReilly SudarshanRao
Build basis: IBM Rational Quality Manager 4.x, 5.x and IBM Rational DOORS 9.x

The link model between IBM Rational DOORS and IBM Rational Quality Manager (RQM) is based on the concept of two links. For example, for every link from an RQM Test Case to a DOORS Requirement, there should also be a link from the DOORS Requirement to the RQM Testcase. This second link is called the 'backlink'. Not all OSLC integrations are implemented this way, some use link discovery. However backlinks are the implementation for DOORS 9 and RQM. See more details in: Back links and link discovery, http://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSYQBZ_9.6.0/com.ibm.doors.install.doc/topics/c_backlinks_linkdiscovery.html?lang=en

For the integration to work correctly and to ensure reporting is accurate, it is important that two links are always maintained. A failure to create or delete one must result in user action.

The link is present in RQM but not in DOORS

The locking model of DOORS makes this the most common scenario. The user in RQM tries to create a link to a requirement in DOORS but it fails as someone in DOORS has the module open in edit mode. It will give a message: The changes to the link cannot be saved because the link target in the Rational DOORS project cannot be updated at this time.

There are three options:

  1. Cancel: If you Cancel, nothing should happen. No link is created in either application.
  2. Try again: If you are the one who has the module open in edit mode in DOORS, close it in DOORS and check Try again.
  3. Save partial changes: If you continue and Save the partial changes, you have created a link from RQM to DOORS but not from DOORS to RQM. In DOORS, you could create the link to the RQM object with a right click, links, new validated by. But also in RQM there is a way of checking the state of these links. See: Ability to see back link status in traceability view: https://jazz.net/downloads/rational-quality-manager/milestones/4.0.1M4?p=news#backlink. The missing links are identified and can be fixed by the broken link icon.

The link is present in DOORS but not in RQM

This is less common but is seen most often if the RQM test case has been deleted. It can be corrected manually in DOORS by removing the Test Case link. Ideally this situation should be avoided by deleting the link to the requirement before the test case is deleted. Access to deleting the test case could be restricted to users who know to do this.

It may also occur if the requirement object in DOORS has been copied or a module containing links to RQM artifacts has been copied.

The attached DXL can check all the validated_by links in a module and create or delete them as directed by the user. The utility is untested and available "as is," without technical support. You can post questions about the utility on the Jazz.net forum, https://jazz.net/forum.

  • Screenshot of the Reconcile QM Backlinks utility:

Related topics: Deployment web home

External links:

Additional contributors: IntegrationsTroubleshootingTeam

Topic attachments
I Attachment Action Size Date Who Comment
Zipzip reconcileQMBackLinks.zip manage 57.7 K 2015-02-06 - 14:43 MaeveOReilly Utility to check the status of validated_by links in DOORS
Edit | Attach | Printable | Raw View | Backlinks: Web, All Webs | History: r6 < r5 < r4 < r3 < r2 | More topic actions
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platformCopyright © by IBM and non-IBM contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Contributions are governed by our Terms of Use. Please read the following disclaimer.
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.