Relationship coverage should accommodate unidirectional relationships

John Sarafin
edited July 2016 in
We currently have a relationship defined for coverage Business Rule to Functional Requirement within Jama. Our BA Practice states that all Business Rules must have a downstream relationship to a Functional Requirement. However, our BA Practice also indicates not all Functional Requirements require an upstream relationship to a Business Rule. If a Functional requirement is added to Jama but not related to a Business Rule, Jama flags the item as "orphan". In Jama, there is no way to configure the downstream relationship of a Business Rule to Functional Requirement as a one-directional relationship instead of a bidirectional relationship.   All Functional requirements not related to a Business Rule are being flagged as an orphan item.  Our idea is to have the capability in Jama to set a downstream relationship "related to" set to yes for coverage but in one-directional flow.

image

Comments

  • Kristina King
    edited June 2016
    John, thank you for bringing this up and for providing such a clear example of why this matters. As more people adopt the Relationship Rules, I think we'll hear more requests like this (you already have a few users "agreeing" with you). 
  • Hi Kristina,
    I just want to add my voice to this feature request. We have the exact same use case.
    Steve Kay
    Principal Systems Test Architect
    Hologic - Breast Health
  • I would also use this. 

    All of my customer requirements must trace to requirements in my prime-item development specification (PIDS), but I also have PIDS requirements derived from internally developed use cases, regulatory standards, and internal design requirements. I want to be able to say all customer requirements must have downstream PIDS requirements without implying that all PIDS requirements should have upstream customer requirements.
  • Anna Henke
    edited June 2018
    Hi,

    we also would like to support the idea of making the rules more flexible, in terms making it configurable if "missing" upstream realtionships display as an orphaned item or not.
    This missing feature currently leads to a very low acceptance of the rules, because our users dont knwo which red (!) they need to take care of and which ones not.

    Has a feature request filed already?

    Thank you,
    Anna