This is likely by design for big teams with proper QA departments, but we are only 3 devs and do round robin QA on each others work.
The problem is say person A creates a bug, and assign it to person B, and the person B resolves the bug, TFS reassigns the bug to the creator.
This makes keeping track of your own fixed bugs nigh impossible.
Is there any way to change this behavior?
Thanks
leppie
The easiest way to make changes like this is with the TFS Power Tools. Among many other things, it will add a "Process Editor" area under your Tools menu in VS. Use the "open WIT from server" feature to download the work item type that's bothering you, make the changes you want (under the Workflow tab in your case), then run "import WIT" to upload it back to the server.
The complete XML specification for work item types is documented on MSDN, but as usual it's quite dense. Here's a series of blog posts that walks you through the possibilities.
Related
Trying to figure out best way to setup Jira for cross-organizational project. We have a Continuous Delivery Program that will split off into separate backlogs to be worked by different teams based on Themes.
Wondering if we should setup one project to manage the overall high level project, and then different projects per theme of work that will be managed by the individual teams.
Are there ways multiple teams can work out of the same project but track their work separately (including if their work is Kan-Ban, Scrum-Ban or Sprint based?)
Regarding the question in the title. It's possible to move issues in JIRA from project to project. This feature is quite handy and you even can do bulk operations. See Moving an issue for more details.
Regarding structuring your projects. Out of the box there is no feature in JIRA to create such a workflow with projects and sub projects you have described.
A possible workaround could be using components as sub projects.
In this case you would create a project which act as your high level project and divide this project into several components. For components you can add a lead, do versioning but you can not set security permissions based on components for example. So this is not a perfect solution and have indeed some limitations since components are not projects. But you have to evaluate this approach by yourself if it is sufficient for you.
Another option would be to use a plugin e.g. Structure. I am pretty sure there are even more out there which promising to solve your problem. From my experience also using a plugin may be not the silver bullet you are expect. You have to evaluate it first if it really suits your workflow.
For the scenario you describe, the issues that you start from are probably more high-level than the actual work that has to picked up in the separate teams.
What I find to work well, is to keep 1 project (ie. Opportunity Backlog) for the high level issue (ie. an Opportunity) and when an opportunity gets detailed out, just create issues in the projects of the teams that will work on them. You can still link those issues to the opportunity so people who look at it can see what is happening in each team.
Another option is to keep everything in 1 project, but to make the relevant issues show up on the board for the team that has to work on them. A board can list issues of multiple projects. You just need to update the JQL query for the board accordingly. For more details, check the documentation. Note that working with sprints can get cumbersome if the same issues are listed on boards of multiple teams though. Best to configure things such that an issue is only displayed on the board of 1 team.
I wouldn't bother with moving issues too much. It's not a very user friendly action.
We have the full Atlassian product range and I am looking at how to make best use of it
We are using Stash to manage our Git 1000+ repositories all of which contain tags pointing to their versions.
I need to be able to define how our software versions depend on each other
For example:
System_x.y.z in production consists of
group_of_components_a_x.y.x consists of
component_a_x.y.z
component_b_x.y.z
...
System_x.y.z is release candidate_a consists of
....
System_x.y.z is in regression test
...
System_x.y.z is in performance test
...
System_x.y.z development is being tracked by Issue#
...
etc etc
I have been using ClearQuest to achieve this but would like to move to a pure Atlassian solution if it exists
I would also like to define a name for group_of_components so that I can attach owners to it as well as to components so we can use them elsewhere in the workflow.
can notify them when versions change.
In Issues so I can see when different teams are working in the same areas
I would also like to be able to use the System_x.y.z, group_of_components_x.y.z and component_a_x.y.z
In Defects so I can see where the error was found (System_x.y.z, group_of_components_x.y.z)
In Defects so I can see where the error was fixed (component_a_x.y.z)
Is any of this possible?
Is any of this possible?
The short answer is yes. It's all possible.
Jira has the following hierarchy:
Project
../ Epic
../../ Task
../../../ Sub-task
If you need to track version numbers as part of a product roadmap you need to use Projects for that feature. There are probably other hacky ways to use labels or components to do something like this but you will spend endless hours extending these hacks throughout Jira. Not a fun exercise IMO.
I need to be able to define how our software versions depend on each other
Dependencies can easily be added at the Epic/Task/Sub-task levels but I'm not aware of an easy way to do this at the version level. I'm only really aware of the Agile Cloud solutions. If you install this locally I'm fairly sure you could find a way to do this if it is truly needed.
I would also like to define a name for group_of_components so that I can attach owners to it as well as to components so we can use them elsewhere in the workflow.
It's very easy to name all issue types and projects. Projects have an owner. All issue types can be assigned to any user (with access rights). Additionally you can add users to the "watch-list" of every issue.
can notify them when versions change.
The watch-list will notify all watchers by email. Additionally you can set up workflows to reassign or marshal each record through a custom workflow.
In Issues so I can see when different teams are working in the same areas
You can add users to teams in any combination (users can be on multiple teams) but I'm not sure I fully understand what "areas" means. You can search, filter and report on all issues by team(s) if that's what you mean.
I would also like to be able to use the System_x.y.z, group_of_components_x.y.z and component_a_x.y.z
In Defects so I can see where the error was found (System_x.y.z, group_of_components_x.y.z)
In Defects so I can see where the error was fixed (component_a_x.y.z)
Each bug you define:
can be organized into an Epic
can be associated to any number of tasks (Blocks task 1 or is blocked by task 2, etc.)
has one or many "affects versions" to track where the bug occurred
has one or many "fix versions" to track when the bug was fixed
My company uses TFS 2008 with the MSF for Agile process template. We are in the process of planning an upgrade for TFS 2010. We use Scenarios as a container for functional requirements with linked development tasks, bugs, etc.
In order to save the state of a Scenario as 'Resolved' or 'Closed', I would like to enforce that any development task or bug that is linked to the scenario is also closed. With TFS 2008, these are links, in TFS 2010 we plan to use child work items.
I have been reviewing the work item type definition schema and MSDN documentation, but nothing is jumping out at me as a solution to this problem.
Can it be done? Thanks in advance for any help!
What you want cannot be done directly. The saving of a work item is what is called a Notification (rather than a Decision). That means that you can only do TFS API stuff in an event after it is done. You cannot block it.
However, there are ways to get the "effect" of what you are looking for. If you modified your template so that your parent work item (I think you called it Scenario) had the State control (not the field) as read only that would make it so that only clients that don't use the normal Visual Studio controls can change that value. (This could be worked around by your users, but it would take some effort to break the rules).
But there is one more step. You need to get the parent work item to "Resolved" somehow. For this I recommend a open source tool that I wrote called TFS Aggregator. (Or if you plan to "roll your own" you could use the code there as a starting point.)
You can find TFS Aggregatoron codeplex here: http://tfsaggregator.codeplex.com/
It is a great tool for rolling up changes and totals to parent work items. You could put in a rule that when your child items are all "done" to move the Parent to "Resolved".
EDIT: I realize now from your question that you have more than one type of Work Item as a child of the parent Item. TFS Aggregator does not support that right now (but it may in the future). It was written to aggregate tasks to Bugs or PBIs. Still, it would probably be easier to modify the code of that project than to start from scratch.
I don't think this is possible "out of the box". I would recommend you write a query to find cases where the "rule" is violated and handle it that way.
If you MUST automate this - You could use the TFS Eventing Service which can invoke a Web Service.
Set it up for when a Task or Bug is closed - query the database for the Scenario and if all the Task/Bugs are closed - use the TFS API to advance the Status to Resolved or Closed. You could limit the allowed user to make advancement to the account the Service runs under.
I'm looking for a work-item-tracking/bug-tracking system (or JIRA plugin, or TFS plugin, or...) which makes it easy to stack-rank work items without having to manually assign priority values to each work item.
Instead, our team wants to be able to see a list of open work items and be able to drag-n-drop one or a multiple selection of work items until the order matches the team's prioritization. This would be much easier than arguing about priority numbers and dealing with ties (e.g. "which of the 5 bugs marked priority=2 should I work on today?").
Our team is considering switching work-item-trackers (we use Gemini now) and availability of a good drag-n-drop prioritizer is high on our requirements list.
I realize drag-n-drop ranking is non-trivial because no team will stack rank all work items. Instead, we'll want to take a subset (e.g. work items for one sprint sprint or iteration, or bugs assigned to one developer) and stackrank those, then later look at a different subset and stackrank those, etc. And I'm sure we'll sometimes need to mix and match different stacks, so there'd need to be heuristics (ideally configurable) about how to show a stack of items previously stacked separately.
Pivotal Tracker is close to the drag-n-drop UI I'm thinking of from a UI perspective, but Pivotal's model of separating user stories from the underlying work items (plus a few other issues) doesn't match how we want to work. We don't want to have to deal with different artifacts (stories vs. JIRA/BugZilla work items)-- instead we just want a drag-n-drop UI to automatically fill out a "priority" field in the issue tracker, and which we can use later when sorting and filtering. And we wouldn't want to use Pivotal as our only work item tracker, because it seems to lack common features like bulk editing which are critical for large projects.
Anyone know of a tool like what I describe above?
Urban turtle is the best TFS add-on, making ranking/prioritizing a sane activity. Priority by number is a disaster so don't think you're alone there.
http://urbanturtle.com/
Urban Turtle is updated every month and used by quite a few teams including a number of my teams.
Eylean Board has what you are looking for. They offer a task board where the tasks are prioritized by moving them around, the priority tasks being on top. Interface is nice and clean and they offer other features such as integration with TFS, reports, etc.
The greenhopper plugin for JIRA has this feature. It's worked well for me ...though I'm not a big fan of JIRA in general.
http://www.atlassian.com/software/greenhopper/tour/backlog-management.jsp
Previous to this, I just used excel.
One of the best (and fastest) web UI's I've seen is on AgileZen, which supports something similar to this. Last I knew it did not have built-in integration with TFS, but it does have a REST API. It's basically a web-based, shareable Kanban board.
In the default TFS setup there are three work item types: scenario, task and bug. That last one is quite straightforward, and task also: it's a specific job for a team member to complete. But I think scenario is a bit vague.
I usually create a scenario for larger and more general units of work: for example "Create functionality to add employee lines to an employer." Smaller, more specific work items would then be tasks, for example: "Create detail form.", "Create save method on server.", etc
When I check in changes I link the changeset to the scenario AND to the specific task. Is this a good habit? How do you deal with tasks and scenarios? Any resources to best practices?
I've also heard scenarios are actually meant for use cases, is this so?
Scenarios can be any user story.
You only need to check in to the task.
When tasks are created, they should be linked to a Scenario first, before assigned to developers.
That way the association between checkins and scenario is automatic (and reportable).
No point double handling
In the MSF Agile template, Scenarios can also be thought of as "User Story" - kinda like a lightweight agile use case.
The Scenario details the broad picture of the functionality that is wanted to be implemented, recording a single path of a users interaction with a part of the system. For example, in Stack Overflow a couple of Scenarios might be "Ask a Question" or "Answer a Question". Scenarios and Quality of Service Requirements can be thought of as top level work items in MSF Agile (i.e. the work items that define the system) with Scenarios being functional requirements and Quality of Service being non-functional requirements.
I tend to create multiple tasks from each scenario and typically only record my check-ins against the task. In TFS 2010 properly hierarchical work items are coming which will make this way of working easier to report on. Currently work item associations are bi-directional (i.e. you can say that a task is associated with a scenario but you cannot say that it is a child of it).
There is nothing wrong with marking your check-in against the task and scenario, just that it creates more work for you when checking in. Also, the scenario might be getting delivered by a number of developers were-as a task tends to be down at the granularity of individual person activities.
If you are doing a lot of associating of a work item to a scenario, then the following tip might be handy for you (http://www.woodwardweb.com/vsts/top_tfs_tip_3_r.html). It shows you how to modify the standard MSF Agile process template to remove the ability for check-in's to resolve the Scenario but just associate the check-in with that work item. Resolving on check-in for a long running work item like a Scenario is nearly always not what you want to happen - but is the default behavior out of the box.
Hope that helps.
If by "default TFS setup" you mean the "MSF for Agile Software Development" project template, then a scenario is defined as follows:
A scenario is a type of work item,
recording a single path of user
interaction through the system. As the
persona attempts to reach a goal, the
scenario records the specific steps
that they will take in attempting to
reach that goal. Some scenarios will
record a successful path; others will
record an unsuccessful one. When
writing scenarios, be specific as
there are many possible paths.
To get a bit more info on this, have a good look at the "Documents/Process Guidance" folder under the project in team explorer - it explains the recommended process fairly well
You can think of scenarios as representing the users perspective, whereas tasks are the developers perspective. According to the MSF Agile documentation a scenario "represents a single path of user interaction through the system you are building.", and a task "identifies a specific item of work for a team member to perform."
Tasks can be linked to scenarios. When checking in you, as a developer, have solved a task, not the scenario, so you should relate the changeset to this task.