This question already has answers here:
How to find issues that at some point has been assigned to you?
(12 answers)
Closed 9 months ago.
I am trying to create JIRA filter as below
project = "ProjectA" AND status = Done
The problem is I am just a developer. Hence, all I do is develop it and then pass it along to tester. At that point the JIRA status changes from "In Progress" to "SIT" ....And finally to "Done".
I want to know how many tasks where actually completed by me in last 5 weeks or so using filter. Is that possible?
You can use the "changed" keyword - see here for details
https://confluence.atlassian.com/display/JIRA/Advanced+Searching#AdvancedSearching-CHANGED
Related
When working on tasks I'm a watching, mainly after there closed , there are several custom fields that aren't related to programming, but for version/project as link, image, tag ...
Currently I'm getting mail on every change on such columns
Can I setup to ignore changes in specific columns, maybe with specific statuses (as closed)?
A workaround will be to remove watching task that are closed, but it's problematic because task may be reopen
We moved to using Git and PRs... then we moved to Azure DevOps from on-premise TFS.
Our developers still have a number of old, irrelevant code reviews in their Assigned to me section.
I tried following the directions here
How can you cancel a Code Review Request? but using that method I was unable to set the Closed Status field. The edits would not save.
That's when I stumbled across a UI feature to simply Edit the items in the query.
Then we can set the State to Closed and the Closed Status to Abandoned.
Then click Save Items in the query menu, refresh the query, and they're all gone now.
The company I work for just started using Team Foundation Server 2013 and it is my Task, to find answers for the open questions in our Team. By doing so, I found a problem I can't solve.
Is it possible, that only the author/creator of a Work Item is able to change the Status of a Work Item to Done?
The advantage of this would be, that Tasks can only be closed when the author is satisfied with the Result.
By editing the work item definitions, you can achieve this.
Same question asked earlier and you'll just have to use the question's answer in the transition to Done state for you.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm interested to find out how people deal with changes to acceptance criteria of user stories on a process level.
Example:
You write a user story with acceptance criteria for feature XYZ. That
user story gets implemented in a sprint of release 1.0. Some time
later for the 1.2 release the product owner wants the acceptance
criteria to be different (e.g. 1 minute timeout instead of 30
seconds).
How do you handle this change? How does it change the status of your original user story? We're using JIRA/JIRA Agile and I'd be specifically interested in hearing if you e.g. re-open your closed user stories and work on them in a new Sprint.
We're using Confluence to write our product specifications and the user stories in the PS are loaded directly from JIRA via a query. If one was to change acceptance criteria of the original user story and reopen it - how would one ensure that the product specification for version 1.0 wouldn't change?
EDIT:
I need to add some more information about our process: every user story has as well as the acceptance criteria some steps which can be used to test these criteria. These steps are used to generate a verification/test protocol which is used to check that all product specifications have been implemented properly.
Now this means a change to the user story would directly affect even already reviewed and signed off product specifications and test protocols since data is loaded via the jira query. I guess that this might not be an adequate way to pull the content into Confluence, something more permanent seems advisable.
Even if we weren't using these direct/dynamic queries, the question is still valid: how does a change in requirements/acceptance criteria affect the user story?
I would consider this to be a new user story, like "As a user, I would like the timeout increased to 1 minute for reasons best known to myself".
So after the product has been released the Product Owner comes back to you and says that they would like:
1 minute timeout instead of 30 seconds
This could be deemed an issue; It's not a bug as the timeout facility works fine, it's just that they have an issue with the period. Hence you could create an issue, associate it with the original story, and then break it up into tasks to implement this change.
However:
how would one ensure that the product specification for version 1.0 wouldn't change?
If the original product specification stated a timeout of 30 seconds, but you have now changed it to one minute, then there is no getting away from the fact that the specification has been changed. Creating an issue and linking it to the original story will mean that you won't need to edit the original story though.
Thank you everyone for your answers. We have since found a way suitable for us to handle changes to user stories.
What we ended up with are the following principles/steps:
Once a software version has been released all user stories which are part of the product specification for that release must not be changed anymore
If the acceptance criteria of the user story should be changed after the release, a change request is filed and linked against the story
The change request is then processed - in the course of it the affected user story is cloned, adapted to the changed acceptance criteria and then added to the product specification for the next release while the old user story is removed
The new user story can now be implemented during a sprint
This way we have a product specification for v1.0 which contains the unchanged user story and a product specification for v2.0 which contains the updated user story.
The important fact is that years later you could pick up the product specification for any version and test it against the acceptance criteria and still get a PASS. This wouldn't be the case if the original user story had been modified.
I hope I managed to explain this in sufficient clarity. Please let me know if I need to elaborate on any parts of the solution.
I would say that your original story remains good. Given that there is value in the change of timeout, you have a clear need to change the acceptance criteria for your original story. This is especially true where your tests are automated. I would create a new story:
As a
I Want to change the timeout value for fraggle thrunge bracket manipulation
So That
Writing this new story will focus the mind wonderfully on the value that this change will bring about. If it adds no value, then don't do it.
You can not change the acceptance criteria of the user story once it is done(yes, refer to definition of done).
If the product owner needs to change the user story acceptance criteria, he/she has to create new feature/user story with "Acceptance criteria".
If the change has come in the middle of the sprint and existing Acceptance Criteria will not make any sense to project, remove the user story from the sprint backlog and add this to new(change should not be accepted in the middle of the sprint) sprint with new/modified acceptance criteria.
This question already has an answer here:
MvvmCross: Bindings for Android
(1 answer)
Closed 9 years ago.
How would I bind to a grandparent in MVVMCross?
I have a List<string> which I'm binding to a MvxLinearLayout with its own item template "A". When the user clicks on the button in "A" I would like to fire an ICommand in its parent (i.e. the owner of the List<string>).
I also have a similar situation with a grandparent relation.
How would I do this?
There is no parent binding access in lists or any other mvx data binding context currently.
There are plenty of simple workarounds - see questions such as MvvmCross Android - Alternative to RelativeSource binding for button command for some suggestions.
I've answered questions similar to this several times. Each time i invite people to raise feature requests, ideas or pulls to issues such as https://github.com/slodge/MvvmCross/issues/35 . While there have been perhaps 3 or 4 of these questions, no-one ever seems bothered enough to follow up, so i guess it's not an important feature.