![]() |
Telelogic DOORS (steve huntington) | ![]() |
new topic :
profile :
search :
help :
dashboard :
calendar :
home
|
||
Latest News:
|
|
Topic Title: Why aren't Headings "Suspicious" if the underlying text changes? Topic Summary: Created On: 6-Jul-2008 19:54 Status: Post and Reply |
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch |
![]() |
![]()
|
![]() |
|
What is the best practice for setting up links from Test Cases to Requirements. I wanted to use Suspicious Links between TC and Req headings but it doesn't catch text changes.
Am I missing a setting somewhere? Should I link my TC headings to all text blocks in the Requirement? Or ensure that each requirements paragraph (object) has an associated paragraph in a test case? The latter seems like a lot of maintenance. Back story: I'm a DOORS newbie and working my way up through the food chain of Link management tools. My original approach to creating Test Cases for existing Requirements was to use Copy Object w. Links on an Outline View of the Requirements. One of my hopes was that changing text in a Requirement would cause the link between Headings to be marked as Suspicious. But it doesn't. So now I'm looking for a best practice to follow. Cheers, Larry Fast |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
You really need to create links to the requirements themselves.
The headings have no relationship with the requirements below them, apart from the fact that they are their parents in the module hierarchy. ------------------------- Tony Goodman Smart DXL limited www.smartdxl.com |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
In my company, I Implemented at least "suspect heading" for Test- Cases ; that is a "Test-Case"-Object can contain several DOORS objects which describe the test procedure etc.Whenever the test step bellow the Test-Case object are changed, the "Review-State" of the test-Case objects switches to "need Review". (equivalent to suspicious).
However, this required additional customisation of DOORS. However, each test case object stills requires a direkt link to each single requirment it tests. This is not only a tool matter, it has also proven to be best practice to manage granularity of tests adequatly (think of test regression, non-conformities or list of deviations, etc) I presented this technique and the acconpanying toolset at the ReConf in Müchen early this year. You might see the presentation at http://2008.reconf.de/fileadmi...g_Draeger_Medical.pdf You might contact me per Email directly if you need more information on this stuff. joyeaux@draeger.com |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
"Suspect links" implies that if the Object Text or the Object Heading changes it will be marked as suspect. In actuality, the "last modified date" must change to be marked as suspect. So changes made the same day the link was made will not be marked as suspect. And if there are different time zones involved...
Caution Only those attributes that have been set to affect change dates cause a link to be marked as suspect when they are edited. The Affect change dates setting can be selected by editing the attribute definition. Note In version 8 of DOORS, date values are stored on the server in UTC (Universal Coordinated Time), and are displayed on the client according to the client time zone. In pre-8.0 versions of DOORS, date attribute values did not include the information to make time zone adjustments, so date attribute values in migrated data may not display as expected. For example, if clients in multiple time zones were working on data, suspect links may not operate as you would expect. For more information, see the section on understanding how dates and times are recorded in Managing DOORS, which is part of the DOORS documentation set. |
|
![]() |
FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2009 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.