Hi All,
I thought that this thread would benefit the ROSE forum. Thanks, Om Naidu Rational-RUP-Administrator -----Original Message----- From: Scott G. Snyder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 9:29 AM To: 'Naidu, Om'; 'Martelli, Rick (EXP)'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [clearquestug] Rational Tools Set and RUP methodology We had to do the same level of customization. I would have hoped that the toolset would better support RUP. We did a ton of customization in particular to ClearQuest, and some to ReqPro. I was abit disappointed in the amount of custom development that was necessary to fully support RUP. (I am the SCM on a web development effort. All new requirements, all new code. Using RUP. It did not have to be as hard as it was). If I do it again I would not use ReqPro, but just create the requirements records directly in CQ. I would have contractual requirements, mapped to many use cases that support those contractual requiremns. I also would have states for the use case requirments all the way through design and elabotation so we could track the full evolution of the use case from start to finish on one record. Then have the construction records that represent the actual code to be written by iteration hanging as children off of those use case requirements. ReqPro and CQ really should be one database to fully support RUP development. I think the functionality of ReqPro should be incorporated into a a schema in CQ to accomplish that. But hey, it works most of the time, and I had fun doing all the design work. I would be interested in how other folks had to overcome this obstacle. At least I was not the only one! Cheers, Scott Snyder -----Original Message----- From: Naidu, Om [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 9:13 AM To: 'Martelli, Rick (EXP)'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [clearquestug] Rational Tools Set and RUP methodology Thank you all. However, I understand that there are ways to customize extensively ClearQuest and Reporting with SODA, I was concerned on the advacacy of RUP and Rational Tools Set as a Flag Ship product for RUP methodology. I have customized CQ in a way that I can associate many to many CR <==> Test Cases. This will provide a better approach to Iterative Model than the default that adheres to Waterfall model. However, the Rational TSRs advocate that I am using it in a wrong way. I just needed some confirmation. However, Martelli and Bruce Pratts' inputs provide me some logical reasoning that my approach is not wrong. Thanks, Om Naidu Rational-RUP-Administrator Pfizer Inc., -----Original Message----- From: Martelli, Rick (EXP) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 4:07 PM To: 'Naidu, Om' Subject: RE: [clearquestug] Rational Tools Set and RUP methodology Hi Om, What's missing is the concept of Work Product management. We have created work product records in ClearQuest that can be associated with Change Requests and other product management records. With the hierarchy that we have created we can associate more than one work product to a change request. A Use Case or Test Case could be an example of a work product, or perhaps a package containing a set of Use/Test Cases could be used. Alternatively, we create Test Case requirements in RequisitePro. Here too, we can associate more than one Change Request against the Test Case. Regards, Rick Martelli Lockheed Martin Canada (613)599-3280 ext.3352 -----Original Message----- From: Naidu, Om [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: September 10, 2002 3:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [clearquestug] Rational Tools Set and RUP methodology Hi All, I had a long thread in this forum about few months back about the Rational Tools and RUP - Methodology. Now, having done the integration of all Rational Tools as per their recommendations, I still find the deviation of the tools set too much against the RUP - methodology. I have one such example from many. Somehow, I find that the tools set is still evolving and not fully matured. At an elaboration stage, if I plan to write Use Cases driven Test Cases and would like to capture them towards a Change Request Artifacts that is being passed on to construction phase to a developer, I cannot do so. This due to the fact that the Tool, TestManager, is driven more towards raising a defect record at verification point of the failure of a Test Case, like in water fall model as against the iterative model. In other words, I cannot in advance associate more than one Test Case with a given CR. Somewhere there is a missing link in the maneuverability of Rational Tools. Can anyone give some inputs? Thanks, Om Naidu Rational-RUP-Administrator, Pfizer Inc. ************************************************************************ * Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions. * For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support * * Post or Reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Archive of messages: * http://www.rational.com/support/usergroups/rose/rose_forum.jsp * Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To unsubscribe from the list, please send email * To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Subject: <BLANK> * Body: unsubscribe rose_forum *************************************************************************
