JIRA "needs documentation" state?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
33 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

JIRA "needs documentation" state?

Bertrand Delacretaz
Hi,

I have reopened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLING-922 to
remind us to document this feature.

We could also create another issue ("document SLING-922") for that -
or does JIRA allow for "needs documentation" (and maybe "needs
automated tests") states for such issues, where the coding is done but
docs and/or tests are still missing.

Does anyone know? If not I'll try to find out how JIRA could help manage this.

-Bertrand

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JIRA "needs documentation" state?

Jukka Zitting
Hi,

On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Bertrand
Delacretaz<[hidden email]> wrote:
> I have reopened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLING-922 to
> remind us to document this feature.
>
> We could also create another issue ("document SLING-922") for that -
> or does JIRA allow for "needs documentation" (and maybe "needs
> automated tests") states for such issues, where the coding is done but
> docs and/or tests are still missing.
>
> Does anyone know? If not I'll try to find out how JIRA could help manage this.

It's possible to specify a custom Jira workflow for something like
this. Just define the extra issue states you need and the permitted
transitions between the states. The default states used currently are:
Open, In Progress, Reopened, Resolved, Closed.

BR,

Jukka Zitting

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JIRA "needs documentation" state?

Bertrand Delacretaz-2-3
Hi,

On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Jukka Zitting<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Bertrand
> Delacretaz<[hidden email]> wrote:
>> ...does JIRA allow for "needs documentation" (and maybe "needs
>> automated tests") states for such issues, where the coding is done but
>> docs and/or tests are still missing.
>>
> ...It's possible to specify a custom Jira workflow for something like
> this. Just define the extra issue states you need and the permitted
> transitions between the states. The default states used currently are:
> Open, In Progress, Reopened, Resolved, Closed....

I'd suggest three new states then

"Needs documentation/tests"
"Needs documentation"
"Needs tests"

Transition from any state to these would be allowed, and these can
transition to any state except "Open".

What do people think?

-Bertrand

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JIRA "needs documentation" state?

Vidar Ramdal-2
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Bertrand
Delacretaz<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Jukka Zitting<[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Bertrand
>> Delacretaz<[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> ...does JIRA allow for "needs documentation" (and maybe "needs
>>> automated tests") states for such issues, where the coding is done but
>>> docs and/or tests are still missing.
>>>
>> ...It's possible to specify a custom Jira workflow for something like
>> this. Just define the extra issue states you need and the permitted
>> transitions between the states. The default states used currently are:
>> Open, In Progress, Reopened, Resolved, Closed....
>
> I'd suggest three new states then
>
> "Needs documentation/tests"
> "Needs documentation"
> "Needs tests"
>
> Transition from any state to these would be allowed, and these can
> transition to any state except "Open".
>
> What do people think?

+1


--
Vidar S. Ramdal <[hidden email]> - http://www.idium.no
Sommerrogata 13-15, N-0255 Oslo, Norway
+ 47 22 00 84 00 / +47 21 531941, ext 2070

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JIRA "needs documentation" state?

Ian Boston

On 3 Sep 2009, at 10:04, Vidar Ramdal wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Bertrand
> Delacretaz<[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Jukka Zitting<[hidden email]
>> > wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Bertrand
>>> Delacretaz<[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> ...does JIRA allow for "needs documentation" (and maybe "needs
>>>> automated tests") states for such issues, where the coding is  
>>>> done but
>>>> docs and/or tests are still missing.
>>>>
>>> ...It's possible to specify a custom Jira workflow for something  
>>> like
>>> this. Just define the extra issue states you need and the permitted
>>> transitions between the states. The default states used currently  
>>> are:
>>> Open, In Progress, Reopened, Resolved, Closed....
>>
>> I'd suggest three new states then
>>
>> "Needs documentation/tests"
>> "Needs documentation"
>> "Needs tests"
>>
>> Transition from any state to these would be allowed, and these can
>> transition to any state except "Open".
>>
>> What do people think?
>
> +1
>

yes +1, provided that the workflow transitions are simple and easy to  
use. I used a more complex Jira setup where it was never clear how and  
where to transition to.... it was a nightmare to use without a cheat  
sheet on the wall.

>
> --
> Vidar S. Ramdal <[hidden email]> - http://www.idium.no
> Sommerrogata 13-15, N-0255 Oslo, Norway
> + 47 22 00 84 00 / +47 21 531941, ext 2070


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JIRA "needs documentation" state?

Jukka Zitting
Hi,

On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Ian Boston<[hidden email]> wrote:
> yes +1, provided that the workflow transitions are simple and easy to use. I
> used a more complex Jira setup where it was never clear how and where to
> transition to.... it was a nightmare to use without a cheat sheet on the
> wall.

In general new workflow states are only useful if there are people who
rely on reports like the "Project Summary" on the Jira project page to
keep track of issues in specific states. If that's not the case, then
you could achieve the same functionality much easier by simply keeping
the issue open and adding a comment that tests or documentation are
still needed before the issue can be closed.

BR,

Jukka Zitting

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: JIRA "needs documentation" state?

Mike Müller
In reply to this post by Ian Boston
> On 3 Sep 2009, at 10:04, Vidar Ramdal wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Bertrand
> > Delacretaz<[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Jukka
> Zitting<[hidden email]
> >> > wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Bertrand
> >>> Delacretaz<[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>> ...does JIRA allow for "needs documentation" (and maybe "needs
> >>>> automated tests") states for such issues, where the coding is
> >>>> done but
> >>>> docs and/or tests are still missing.
> >>>>
> >>> ...It's possible to specify a custom Jira workflow for something
> >>> like
> >>> this. Just define the extra issue states you need and the
> permitted
> >>> transitions between the states. The default states used
> currently
> >>> are:
> >>> Open, In Progress, Reopened, Resolved, Closed....
> >>
> >> I'd suggest three new states then
> >>
> >> "Needs documentation/tests"
> >> "Needs documentation"
> >> "Needs tests"
> >>
> >> Transition from any state to these would be allowed, and these can
> >> transition to any state except "Open".
> >>
> >> What do people think?
> >
> > +1
> >
>
> yes +1, provided that the workflow transitions are simple and
> easy to
> use. I used a more complex Jira setup where it was never
> clear how and
> where to transition to.... it was a nightmare to use without a cheat
> sheet on the wall.

+1

best regards
mike

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JIRA "needs documentation" state?

Bertrand Delacretaz-2
In reply to this post by Ian Boston
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Ian Boston<[hidden email]> wrote:
> ...yes +1, provided that the workflow transitions are simple and easy to use. I
> used a more complex Jira setup where it was never clear how and where to
> transition to.... it was a nightmare to use without a cheat sheet on the
> wall....

I'd suggest leaving all transitions possible, except maybe going back
to "Open" from the "needs X" states.

No need to restrict anything, as Jukka indicates the goal is to better
keep track of why an issue is still open.

-Bertrand

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JIRA "needs documentation" state?

Felix Meschberger-2
In reply to this post by Bertrand Delacretaz-2-3
Hi,

Bertrand Delacretaz schrieb:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Jukka Zitting<[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Bertrand
>> Delacretaz<[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> ...does JIRA allow for "needs documentation" (and maybe "needs
>>> automated tests") states for such issues, where the coding is done but
>>> docs and/or tests are still missing.
>>>
>> ...It's possible to specify a custom Jira workflow for something like
>> this. Just define the extra issue states you need and the permitted
>> transitions between the states. The default states used currently are:
>> Open, In Progress, Reopened, Resolved, Closed....
>
> I'd suggest three new states then
>
> "Needs documentation/tests"
> "Needs documentation"
> "Needs tests"
>
> Transition from any state to these would be allowed, and these can
> transition to any state except "Open".
>
> What do people think?

Basically, +1.

Should these steps be mandatory, thus no close without transitioning
through these steps ? Or optional, thuss being able to forget about it

What do we want to capture with the workflow (current states in
parentheses) ?

  * issue has been reported (open)
  * work is in progress (in progress)
  * considered fixed (resolved)
  * confirmed fixed (closed)
  * requires documentation (-)
  * requires test case(s) (-)
  * included in the release (-)
  * closed (closed)

Which of these states are allowed and how should transitions be allowed
? E.g. should a transition from open to "included in release" be allowed ?

Regards
Felix

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JIRA "needs documentation" state?

Bertrand Delacretaz-2-3
Hi,

On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Felix Meschberger<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Bertrand Delacretaz schrieb:
>> ...I'd suggest three new states then
>>
>> "Needs documentation/tests"
>> "Needs documentation"
>> "Needs tests"
>>
> ...Should these steps be mandatory, thus no close without transitioning
> through these steps ? Or optional, thuss being able to forget about it...

Optional..keep things simple, and some issues (like fixing a bug)
don't need docs and tests should be written/updated when fixing the
issue anyway.

> ...What do we want to capture with the workflow (current states in
> parentheses) ?
>
>  * issue has been reported (open)
>  * work is in progress (in progress)
>  * considered fixed (resolved)
>  * confirmed fixed (closed)
>  * requires documentation (-)
>  * requires test case(s) (-)
>  * included in the release (-)...

Can't we use the JIRA "fix version" field to manage that?

> ...Which of these states are allowed and how should transitions be allowed
> ? E.g. should a transition from open to "included in release" be allowed ?...

I'd leave everything allowed for now, we're a small enough team to
manage edge cases manually IMHO.

-Bertrand

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JIRA "needs documentation" state?

Felix Meschberger-2
Hi,

Bertrand Delacretaz schrieb:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Felix Meschberger<[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Bertrand Delacretaz schrieb:
>>> ...I'd suggest three new states then
>>>
>>> "Needs documentation/tests"
>>> "Needs documentation"
>>> "Needs tests"
>>>
>> ...Should these steps be mandatory, thus no close without transitioning
>> through these steps ? Or optional, thuss being able to forget about it...
>
> Optional..keep things simple, and some issues (like fixing a bug)
> don't need docs and tests should be written/updated when fixing the
> issue anyway.
>
>> ...What do we want to capture with the workflow (current states in
>> parentheses) ?
>>
>>  * issue has been reported (open)
>>  * work is in progress (in progress)
>>  * considered fixed (resolved)
>>  * confirmed fixed (closed)
>>  * requires documentation (-)
>>  * requires test case(s) (-)
>>  * included in the release (-)...
>
> Can't we use the JIRA "fix version" field to manage that?
>
>> ...Which of these states are allowed and how should transitions be allowed
>> ? E.g. should a transition from open to "included in release" be allowed ?...
>
> I'd leave everything allowed for now, we're a small enough team to
> manage edge cases manually IMHO.

You are probably right and the presence of the optional steps on the
left hand side "menu" might help to not forget about testing/documentation.

Regards
Felix

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JIRA "needs documentation" state?

Jukka Zitting
In reply to this post by Bertrand Delacretaz-2
Hi,

On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Bertrand
Delacretaz<[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'd suggest leaving all transitions possible, except maybe going back
> to "Open" from the "needs X" states.

It should always be possible to go back to Open from any other state
than Closed. That way you don't need to create a new issue if you find
out that an unreleased fix needs to be changed in some way.

BR,

Jukka Zitting

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JIRA "needs documentation" state?

Bertrand Delacretaz-2-3
Hi,

On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Jukka Zitting<[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Bertrand
> Delacretaz<[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I'd suggest leaving all transitions possible, except maybe going back
>> to "Open" from the "needs X" states.
>
> It should always be possible to go back to Open from any other state
> than Closed. That way you don't need to create a new issue if you find
> out that an unreleased fix needs to be changed in some way...

Ok, let's leave all transitions open then!
-Bertrand

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JIRA "needs documentation" state?

Joshua Oransky
In reply to this post by Bertrand Delacretaz-2-3
unsubscribe

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JIRA "needs documentation" state?

Will Carpenter
unsubscribe

On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Joshua Oransky <[hidden email]> wrote:

> unsubscribe
>



--
willcarpenterdesign.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

unsubscribe (was: JIRA "needs documentation" state?)

Felix Meschberger-2
Hi,

please send mail to dev-unsubscribe(a)sling to unsubscribe.

Regards
Felix

Will Carpenter schrieb:
> unsubscribe
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Joshua Oransky <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> unsubscribe
>>
>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JIRA "needs documentation" state?

Bertrand Delacretaz-2-3
In reply to this post by Jukka Zitting
Hi,

Seems like we agree to add these states to JIRA's Sling workflow:

"Needs documentation/tests"
"Needs documentation"
"Needs tests"

Transition from any state to these is allowed, and transitions from
these states to any other state as well.

Does someone here have karma to change this configuration, or do I
need to ask infra?
I don't think I have that, don't see any workflows option on my JIRA
Administration page.

-Bertrand

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JIRA "needs documentation" state?

Felix Meschberger-2
Hi Betrand,

Bertrand Delacretaz schrieb:

> Hi,
>
> Seems like we agree to add these states to JIRA's Sling workflow:
>
> "Needs documentation/tests"
> "Needs documentation"
> "Needs tests"
>
> Transition from any state to these is allowed, and transitions from
> these states to any other state as well.
>
> Does someone here have karma to change this configuration, or do I
> need to ask infra?
> I don't think I have that, don't see any workflows option on my JIRA
> Administration page.

I could do that. At the same time I think it would be a good idea to
prevent bugs from being reopened as has been set on Jackrabbit and other
projects.

WDYT ?

Regards
Felix

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JIRA "needs documentation" state?

Bertrand Delacretaz-2-3
Hi,

On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Felix Meschberger<[hidden email]> wrote:
> ...At the same time I think it would be a good idea to
> prevent bugs from being reopened as has been set on Jackrabbit and other
> projects...

What's the idea behind this? Force people to reopen new issues if a
problem is not really solved?

-Bertrand

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JIRA "needs documentation" state?

Jukka Zitting
In reply to this post by Jukka Zitting
Hi,

On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Jukka Zitting<[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Bertrand
> Delacretaz<[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I'd suggest leaving all transitions possible, except maybe going back
>> to "Open" from the "needs X" states.
>
> It should always be possible to go back to Open from any other state
> than Closed. That way you don't need to create a new issue if you find
> out that an unreleased fix needs to be changed in some way.

Hmm, actually that's what the Reopened state is for... :-)

BR,

Jukka Zitting

12