advanced relationship rules

Options
[Deleted User]
[Deleted User] Posts: 12
edited July 2016 in
is there any way to refine the relationship rules for coverage beyond a simple type requirement?

There are a few situations I'd like to accommodate:
  1. make relationship rules dependent on a pick-list field (or other field). so for example if an item is marked as requiring a test, then it needs to be related to a downstream test, but otherwise not
  2. make relationships optional in one direction but not the other. currently if a relationship is required for coverage, then a downstream item without an upstream item will flag as being an orphan. I'd like to be able to have some items of the downstream type without any upstream items (extra tests without a specific requirement for example)
  3. make a "requires any one of" rule where an item type could be related any one of a group of item types to satisfy coverage
I can sort of work around the current limitations with filters to check these types of rules, but then I can't use the relationship status feature to flag missing relationships, and it requires more manual checking of various filters to validate them.

Comments

  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 911
    edited June 2016
    Options
    Rafael, as you probably discovered by now, there's no way to add any conditions to the relationship rules. All of what you bring up makes sense and seems applicable to multiple situations. I'm going to change this post to an Idea to reflect it has some features we should consider, especially considering the needs of your industry.
  • Phil Bloxom
    Phil Bloxom Member Posts: 12
    Options
    I was wondering if there was a way to limit the amount of relationships between items?

    I want to require every SW Requirement to have at least one Design Description downstream but I want every Design Description to have ONLY one SW Requirement upstream.

    Is this possible in Jama?

    Thanks,

Categories