Menu

#22 Request Tracker (RT) integration

open
nobody
5
2004-10-14
2004-10-14
Anonymous
No

Integration into Request Tracker.

It would be nice if the submission area has more fields
such as priority levels, severity levels, software
version (from CVS?), software component (file, module)
to enter data into.

nprobert@probestar.com

Discussion

  • David Sitsky

    David Sitsky - 2004-10-14

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=208928

    Hi there,

    I am not familiar with "Request Tracker", but I am assuming
    it is another application for recording tasks/defects
    roughly along the line of Bugzilla. Our attitude with
    Bugzilla integration is not to replicate information such as
    "priority levels", "severity" etc etc in Codestriker, but to
    provide a facilty to link to the corresponding record easily
    from Codestriker, and to update the task tracking sytsem
    record with links to Codestriker.

    What I think would be the best approach would be to write a
    new "Request Tracker" module, that slots into the system
    like the Bugzilla module (see
    Codestriker/TopicListeners/Bugzilla.pm). This module gets
    topic lifesystem events, which should automatically update
    the corresponding "Request Tracker" record with URLs to the
    corresponding Codestriker review. Likewise, from
    Codestriker, we show links to the corresponding bugzilla
    record via the topic properties page.

    Is this along the lines of what you meant?

     
  • Nobody/Anonymous

    Logged In: NO

    I too agree with the submitters suggestion, and I would
    really like something similar in order to integrate with our
    home-grown software development system. We have CSCIs
    (applications if you will), CSCs (modules), and CSUs
    (files). A CSCI is composed of a tree-like heirarchy of
    CSCs and the CSUs are the leaves of the tree. We have
    design reviews, code reviews, and change reviews of CSUs and
    these occur at various stages of development. It would be
    nice to be able to create (and subsequently link to) peer
    reviews of all of these from within our home-grown system.
    At a minimun, we'd need one CSCI, CSC, and CSU field for
    each peer review, perhaps another field for the type of
    review (design, code & implementation, change). Our
    home-grown system is very structured like this, and this is
    from where all the peer review links should be visible. Our
    home-grown system (or any other system I'd guess) should be
    able to get at a unique instance of a peer review based its
    own attributes.

    I think making the peer review entry form (table) more
    configurable like you did with the metrics and comment levels.

    Submitted anonymously by deischen@gdeb.com

     
  • David Sitsky

    David Sitsky - 2004-11-07

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=208928

    Hi Dan,

    In your case, I would have thought the best of of achieving
    this is to write a custom tracker module, similar to the
    Bugzilla one. I would prefer to stay on the side of
    simplicity, so your "bug id" for a specific review would
    look something like:

    CSCI=345&CSC=12&CSU=435978 or even just 345:12:435978, or
    some other simple ID scheme.

    Your module can then do the same lifecycle code as the
    Bugzilla module. Even though you have a 3-level ID
    heirarchy, it essentially still combines into one tracker ID.

    Does that seem workable? I don't see why Codestriker needs
    to be aware of the CSCI, CSC and CSU fields, it just needs a
    combined ID for linking purposes?

     
  • Nobody/Anonymous

    Logged In: NO

    Usurping the bug id doesn't seem like the right thing to do.
    First, we use Bugzilla also so that would prevent us from
    using this feature for bug tracking. Second, the autobug
    tracking module (I forget what its called) that notifies
    bugzilla would have to be rewritten or nulled out somehow.

    I think a separate field to allow external tools to have
    some sort of unique identifier for a peer review topic would
    be the way to go. We _could_ use the topic title (e.g.,
    topic title = CSCI=345&CSC=12&CSU=435978), but that isn't
    very nice to see in emails as the subject.

    Our external system/tools don't need to be notified of peer
    review events (unlike what the the bugzilla tracker module
    does). We just need to be able to record some unique id
    into our external tools so that we can later look up the
    relevent peer review(s) for a specific unit, change set, etc.

    Submitted anonymously by deischen@gdeb.com

     
  • David Sitsky

    David Sitsky - 2004-11-09

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=208928

    Ah I see, you are also using Bugzilla. I wonder then if you
    can just define some new topic metrics for CSCI, CSC and
    CSU, and enter those into your metrics schema, and enter
    them from the "topic information" tab?

     
  • Nobody/Anonymous

    Logged In: NO

    Hmm, I suppose you could add a topic metric, but the filters
    only allow hours , count, or percent. One could imagine
    that our existing system could massage CSCI, CSC, CSU, peer
    review type, etc into unique ids, but that's not very
    convenient ;-) It also doesn't make it easy to later change
    the topic information if the CSU gets renamed or moved to a
    different CSC (hopefully our tools would learn to do this
    automatically however).

    Using topic metrics might make it easy when downloading the
    metrics because you could then sort and group by CSCI, CSC,
    CSU, etc. Having these identifiers be character strings
    would be much easier when looking at the sorted/grouped data
    however.

    What do I have to do to allow other filters?

     
  • Nobody/Anonymous

    Logged In: NO

    The other thing about using the topic metric is that it
    isn't set or seen when the topic is created. So in order to
    link a topic into our external tools, it would be at least a
    2 step process. First you create the topic, then you go to
    the topic, visit the topic information page, and enter the
    CSC, CSU, etc.
    We'd have to write our own "Create Topic" page I guess.

    Submitted anonymously by deischen@gdeb.com

     

Log in to post a comment.