I'm starting a new software proyect and I wanted to use trac to manage it. Mostly because I love it's wiki and I love the way django use it.
One thing I'd like to avoid is to pollute the development board with bug reports and viceversa. A quick round on google left me bare handed so I'd like to ask if any of you have experience setting up trac with different boards, one for regular planning and other for bug tracking.
Opinions?
It's up to you to organise it and there are several possible ways. In my opinion the best is to define two different ticket type groups (see http://{yourTrac}/admin/ticket/type), one for the plan and the other for bug handling:
plan:
'workpackage' for grouping
'enhancement'
'modification'
'task'
=> insert tickets of type enhancement, modification and task as children to tickets of type workpackage (e.g. using MasterTicketsPlugin)
bug tracking:
'bug'
Then use the Trac query language all over your ticket queries and Trac plugins to separate by ticket type, and insert them separated in your wiki pages and milestone wiki-language descriptions, e.g.:
[[TicketQuery(group=type,format=progress,type=enhancement|modification|task)]]
[[TicketQuery(group=type,format=progress,type=bug)]]
[[BurndownChart(milestone=v1.0,label=Plan,startdate=2014-10-20,enddate=2015-05-25,type=enhancement|modification|task)]]
[[BurndownChart(milestone=v1.0,label=Bugs,startdate=2014-10-20,enddate=2015-05-25,type=bug)]]
[[WorkloadChart(milestone=v1.0,type=enhancement|modification|task)]]>
[[WorkloadChart(milestone=v1.0,type=bug)]]
[[TracJSGanttChart(milestone=v1.0,type=workpackage|enhancement|modification|task)]]
[[TracJSGanttChart(milestone=v1.0,type=workpackage|bug)]]
One approach is to add the bug tickets as child tickets to the appropriate tickets of the plan if they are the result of the development and fall out during the testing period.
If your goal is to keep the list of tickets that represent your development plan for forthcoming release(s) separate from the untidy thicket of tickets that represent issues being encountered by users of the current release, how about using ticket "milestone"? So, "bug" reports would be opened in the "current" milestone, task planning (for potentially multiple future releases) would be associated with non-current milestone(s). I assert this allows for clearer description of items in both the current and the forthcoming release.
Someone opens a ticket complaining about how things work right now. If you decide you should address it for current users, you leave it in the current milestone (though you might reclassify it a "task" or an "enhancement"). If you decide it must wait for another release, you move it into a forthcoming milestone, but can choose to leave it called a "bug", it doesn't have to be reclassified as a "task".
Likewise, when you're testing the unreleased code and find a problem, you can call it a "bug", but in the forthcoming milestone; again, it doesn't have to be a "task" just to be considered part of the development plan.
Related
We're using Redmine to log and track all of our tasks, bugs, and features. We have a one month release cycle and it's important to ensure that the order of the items in Redmine corresponds to the relative priority of each item, so that people are not working on less important stuff.
Currently to achieve this we created a custom field in Redmine called 'rank' and assigned each items a integer from 1-1000. This works initially but re-ranking items and reordering is just painful because the same item ends up being edited many times to get it in the correct place on the priority list. Is there any way to be able to drag and drop items to reorder them? I doubt we have a unique requirement, there must be some way other people are doing this??
Thanks for the help in advance,
Max
Have you looked at the Stuff To Do plugin from Eric Davis? It may be close to what you're looking for -
http://www.redmine.org/projects/redmine/wiki/PluginStuffToDo
https://github.com/edavis10/redmine-stuff-to-do-plugin
It doesn't look like there is an existing plugin to do this. It has been raised on the Redmine forums, but nothing seems to have come of it:
http://www.redmine.org/issues/9183
Thats right, There is no existing plugin to do that. Stuff_to_do is user-level organization of tasks assigned to him and drag-and-drop to recoorganize the tasks from/to 'current working list', 'recommended list of tasks' and 'available list of tasks'.
I kinda feel there should be an alternative to your requirement. Why should we rank the tasks? We should probably conduct scrum/stand-ups and assign list of tasks to each person and reorganize the order in the stuff_to_do plugin so that the developer checks off the tasks in his list.
Also you can group the related tasks together using 'Related Tasks' option in each issue. Add an issue to be a 'follower'/'predecessor' to an other issue.
Use better reporting using 'custom queries'
Use Redmine_whining plugin to remind developers.
These are just my view based on the exposure I got in the area of Agile Product Management and Redmine plugins
I was thinking that I’d rather only use the Task Work Item and ignore the Bug Work Item. This is my thinking as I set things up for my team. I’m on a quest to see why I shouldn’t do this. From my perspective a Task is either a new item or a bug item. There is no need to use two distinct Work Item Types. To make this happen in TFS I’ll start with the Bug Work Item and create a custom field (“Item Type”) to distinguish the two task types: new/bug. Both new tasks and bugs will share the same fields. Anyone see any major drawbacks to this approach?
The main reason Tasks/Issue/Bugs/etc are different work items are because the individual fields of each work type can be configured differently.
For example, by default, Bugs have a Triage property, Issues have Due date, Tasks have a Discipline. The States of a Bug (Active/Closed/Resolve) are different from an issue (Active/Closed).
By merging them into a single work item type you would loose the ability to configure each one uniquely.
Also, the rules followed when a Bug and Task are closed, for example, are generally different. Segregating them into work items allows a simpler rules set.
Work item type is also a standard column in all queries.
Overall, it depends on how extensively you are using Team Foundation. If your project is small, and the above don't matter, it's not going to hurt. Though I don't see much gain either.
I would suggest keeping Bug and dropping Task if you want to merge them. By default when you check in code and Resolve with a bug, it sets the status to Resolved and assigns it to whoever created it - usually a tester, but in your case possibly a PM. That person can then test to confirm the work is done and close it. You can set up alerts on their work items so they get an email and know that progress has happened. Alternatively if you use Task, when you Resolve at check in it is just closed. No alerts, no further testing. YMMV but on some of our projects we use Bug for things like "user would like to add a new report" and it fits our process well. (For others we keep the distinction for reporting purposes.)
It all boils down to 3 things:
Creation / prioritization
Reporting / Notifications
Completion workflow
Typically creation of a Task involves different fields than a Bug. For a bug you'll want to know things like environment found in, who notified you, severity, priority, etc.
For tasks you usually want to know the requestor, reason behind it, business unit impacted and iteration it is scheduled for. Tasks might be long term goals that result in new or enhanced functionality.
Reporting and Notifications of the two are generally different as well. PM's are going to track tasks to ensure deliverables are met, your tech support area is going to track bugs.
Next, bugs will generally result in hotfixes and service packs. Depending on severity this this might involve a high priority push through QA and release as quickly as possible. Tasks are more laid back and will go through all forms of regression and regular testing with a period of acceptance by the impacted business unit.
Finally, bugs may impact previous versions of your software. Tasks will almost always be for either the version currently under development or the one after that.
In short, they are fundamentally different things. They might share most fields in common, however by combining them you are restricting yourself in both reporting and workflows. Today this might be okay; however within the next month or next year this could seriously restrict you.
Considering that maintainence of work item types is an incredibly easy thing there is almost no benefit to merging them.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I currently work in a small business (15-20 employees, 5 programmers) where most projects are custom built CMS and a few web applications products.
Since I started working there, I have worked on many projects, but specifications for each project vary a lot. Sometimes we get a little detail, a Word document telling what the client wants, and what we are suggesting (suggested form fields, a short description of display, etc.). Sometimes almost nothing except "do what you think is the best approach for this project/module/request".
My question to you guys, who might work in different kind of businesses, is: How (huge pile of paper? Word docs? Visios?) and what kind of information do you get from your superiors, managers, teamates when starting a project (plenty of analysis, drawings, etc.)? How much detail do you get on this?
Hope my question is clear enough, thank you.
Specs..that's kind of funny...how about never :(.
Seriously a lot of companies assume specs aren't needed, its absolutely unacceptable but this is how it is in a LOT of companies. They assume a one liner and the programmer knows what the program should do, the inputs / outputs and so on.
Unfortunately in my case I have to actually help write the specs..and Im the programmer :(.
I mostly get a lot of verbal direction and I use a voice recorder to record the conversation and transcribe it when I am done. I write my own specs from my customers' words.
Then, as a good consultant should, I take the writeup back to the customer and verify it, and get a signature and build it, and they live happily every after! (no they dont, they change their mind a 100 times)
It can vary depending on what group the work falls under:
Support request - If the change will take a short period of time and is fixing something broken, there is this group. This could be as simple as, "Add Bob to the list of authorized users for that ancient form" where the form is something written years ago and aside from adding and removing users, it isn't touched for fear of breaking things.
Service Advisory Committee request - Items that are up to a few days are in this group as these are kind of like mini-projects as the request may be to create a new form or portal for a group. This could be upgrading some 3rd party software where we have some customizations that make the upgrade not necessarily a simple thing for Operations to do.
Project - In this case there are usually a few Word documents and/or e-mail threads that help nail down requirements in terms of scope, budget, and time. These can take months though there is something to be said for having a prototype to change rather than creating the initial prototype to tell if requirements are really met or not. Course my current project is over a year old, still has a few more months to the timeline and already has a successor coming after it is done,i.e. there is a Phase II to go after Phase I.
Uber project - These merit their own group of documentation and are the million dollar, multiple company projects that usually try to document everything up front rarely works out well here. Thus, there is some adoptioon of agile for these but there are still some growing pains to go through as how we use agile matures. Think installing a dozen modules of some off-the-shelf software that requires both internal and external developers to customize the suite for our specific needs as the software is supposed to be very robust, flexible and help save lots of time and money on how people otherwise do their jobs generally. Think ERP or CRM for a couple of examples here.
We are a 16-person company that creates and supports customized software for small retail shop owners.
The projects we get fall into three general categories (as related to specs):
"Here, automate this form." A sales person explains that our customer only wants this form to appear where they can fill it out and print it to make it look professional to their customer. Our specs is a single piece of paper that looks something like an order form or report. This is always false; they want pop-up lookups, automatic updating from other sources, and "while you're at it" add-ons that more than double the time. These, we've learned to just live in the moment and let the project take its course. By the time we're done, the program doesn't look anything like their original form.
Small changes. Like a simple e-mail explaining that the background color is stale, or a request to sort a report by a different column. These, we just do as time allows.
Big company integrations, where we're tasked with making our software work with some big outfit like Intuit (QuickBook) or FedEx (shipping rates). These often have well thought out documentation and sample code. We get 100's of pages in word documents or pdfs. The problem with these is when their specs are wrong. We find out about inaccuracies when we try to test or certify our integration. In these instances, we usually take longer in certification than we did to originally develop the processes.
In all cases, the real trouble is when a sales person promises a solution to the customer before even asking a programmer what it would take. As recently as 2 weeks ago, a sales person got into real trouble and had to issue a refund (that person is no longer with the company).
None - at least not from management.
Instead, as a developer (and particularly one leading a software project right now), I'm expected to contact my users/customers/etc and work directly with them to come up with our specifications and requirements. The documentation I do request from my team is only what will be useful to the team. I am lucky in that management rarely requests a document that doesn't make sense or won't provide some use to our project.
I currently have a half-dozen or so specs each 60-80 pages. One of them is 80 pages with no table of contents. Good times.
Our Product Managers and senior engineers prepare three planning docs for our data management software projects.
High-level requirements: 1-to-3 sentence descriptions of hardware/software supported or specific feature for this project. (10-15 pages of Excel-like grids)
Technical details: Engineering implementation of each high-level requirements. Up to a page for each, depending on amount of detail. (30-40 pages of filled-in feature details)
Business agreement: Summary of 1 & 2 with engineering schedule and Product Mgmt's market analysis. Everyone signs off on this. (5 pages analysis, 20 technical)
I haven't seen work flows or other Visio-like details in our specs. The prioritized requirements and schedule prove critical, so we understand when to lop things off to save development and testing time.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I am attempting to manage my projects a little better so I am looking at attempting to apply some of (eventually all) the features of scrum.
Looking at user stories specifically the high level format seems to be:
As a User I can Feature Description
or
Artifact is Doing Something
How would I write "Upgrade the Database"?
Is it simply Upgrade the Database?
I think I am being thrown off as there is no specific actor/customer and that the customer is the IT department.
AS A [person/role]
I NEED TO [do something]
SO THAT [provides business value].
For your example a user story might look like this:
AS A user of the XYZ application
I NEED TO get reports of ABC faster
SO THAT we can increase our conversion rates.
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA - The database reliably completes transactions on average in 2 seconds.
I've added an acceptance criteria because without this you will never know when the job is done. Now at this point, you have a business case for upgrading the database. This story would be decomposed into a story where the role is the IT department or DBA, like so:
AS AN administrator for the database server
I NEED TO upgrade to the latest version of FancyDB 11.7
SO THAT we can improve the average transaction time for XYZ users to 2 seconds.
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA - the new version starts successfully, the XYZ developers sign off on the test installation of 11.7, data migration is successful, we have cut over to the new db
When story decomposition is added to your box of tools, the story must start from where the user is a real part of the business, and the "so that" leads to a real business value. Then decompose the story into one or more stories in which internal users do things "so that" real users get the benefits in need.
Here are a couple of articles that talk about Story Decomposition:
http://jpattonassociates.com/the_shrinking_story/
http://old.cognitive-edge.com/wp-content/uploads/1999/11/56-1999-11-Paradox-of-Story.pdf
Scrum is not very prescriptive and there is nothing in Scrum that forces you to use User Stories for your Product Backlog Items (PBIs). You can definitely do Scrum without capturing requirements/features as user stories, user stories are just one way to do it. Actually, stories do work for many teams, especially web development teams, but this doesn't mean that they work in all cases and on every project (many projects are web development but not all, like in your case). There is no consensus about using stories.
That said, the recommended template for User Stories is actually As a <role>, I want to <action> so that <benefits>. I don't mean to be picky but, if you choose to use stories, I'd warmly suggest to use it as is, without removing any part. First, using a role do help (a same user/person can have several roles) to discover stories. Then specifying the benefits is really important to expose the business value of a story in order to prioritize them well. Regarding the value, you should think of it as end-user/customer ("put on customer glasses" --Mary Poppendieck). It is really not always that easy to express the benefits, but some tools might help and my preferred one is the 5 whys (which is used for root cause analysis).
In your case, this could lead to something like: As the IT department, I want the database to be upgraded so that users can benefits from the latest features of the application and [do a better job|have a better user experience] (not very satisfying though, use the 5 whys).
But personally I don't find that user stories are the best medium for technical tasks even if it is clearly possible to use them and if they have their strengths. Theoretically, stories capture the essence, not the details and should be a support for the discussion. I may be wrong but I don't find that technical tasks offer much room for discussion and creativity. So, depending on who will read them, what the should convey, I might use them or not. Another option could be to mix stories with another formalism for your PBIs. As I said, the point is not to use stories, the point is to have a list of prioritized and estimated items.
Upgrade the database may be one of the tasks involved in implementing another story that brings direct value to the user, for example I as a user can add a new foo to my bar.
If adding a foo to a bar requires a database upgrade behind the scenes, then you would include that work in implementing that user story.
User stories are worded this way to help ensure that any work directly benefits the end user in some way.
This gets to the forefront of why user stories are so great.
What benefit does upgrading your database give to the end user? None? Then don't spend the time and money doing it. Spend that time and money providing something that will give value to your end user.
If it does? Then think about it the other way. Maybe you can only implement a new feature when you have version x of your database software? In the dependency of the story, you could mention that database upgrade required to provide this feature.
tl;dr Don't just upgrade for the sake of it. Make sure upgrading adds tangible value to your customers.
Generally, technical tasks in the PB are frowned upon because they very rarely directly deliver business value to the customer. That's why User Stories are popular, because they force you to think about the business value of the story, and who it's being delivered to.
So, why are you upgrading the database? Can you identify business value in upgrading it, and why should the Product Owner agree to let you upgrade the database instead of building new features?
Is it because of a new feature that will make it possible or make it easier to do something in your application? In that case, that something should be the PB item, and the database upgrade should be a task within that story. If you already have stories on the PB that would benefit from the upgrade, then you should increase the estimates for one or more of those stories, and add the upgrade as a technical task to the story.
Is it because the vendor of the database is cutting off an old version from support? In that case you could have the upgrade as the story; something like, "As the department manager, I want to be sure that we have support for all of the software so that the continuity of the business isn't at risk if something goes wrong". Even that's pushing it, though. Generally, this kind of reason isn't really part of a project, unless the project has been going on so long the system software goes off support.
Is it for performance? Then the story should be about some aspect of the performance of the application that needs to be improved to deliver business value. Something like, "As a CSR I need to be able to retrieve customer information in a reasonable time so that customers on the phone are satisfied with our service". Then the upgrade becomes a task under that story.
Is it for some totally technical reason? If you can't identify how the upgrade is going to deliver business value, then why would you do it? Why would the Product Owner select it for a Sprint?
It's simply "Upgrade the Database" or maybe "When the new version is installed, there must be a way to migrate the existing database". If you already know more details about this step, then include them. But the story mostly exists to make sure something isn't forgotten; it's not to be detailed.
Later, when you get to implement this story, you can flesh it out (which tables, do we need one or more backups, is there a fall back scenario, etc).
OTOH, if the project is more complex, this can become a "tag", like a post-it notice which must be attached to many stories. That means you must include this as a "sub story" to all stories which change the database. As you can see, these "project-spanning stories" are a bit hard to track with agile methods.
Infrastructure stories do not need to follow the prescribed story template. Just write down what needs to be done and estimate accordingly
How about:
As the application support person I want to be on the latest version of database because it is more reliable / more secure / whatever.
You could even phrase refactoring like that:
As the application developer I want all the data classes in one module so that I can add new fields to the app very quickly.
Who benefits
What you want to do
What the benefit is
Ideally you don't want all the stories to have 1 be developers, but a few make sense (sharpening your ax instead of cutting down trees and all that).
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I work for a CMMI level 5 certified company and one thing I hate about is the amount of documents we prepare (As a programmer I already hate documents). We have lots and lots of documents like PID(project initiation doc), Business requirements, System requirements,tech spec, Code review checklist, issue logs, Defect logs, Configuration management plan, Configuration management check list(s), Release documents and lots...
Almost 90% of these docs are just done for the sake of QA audit :) .. What do you think are the most important documents for a project? What documents can be used in the long run by another developer?
Please share your good practices here. I would like to use them for my own projects or the company I am planning to start in the long run.
Thanks
The key document is a good functional spec. There should be one and only one reference document for a system.
Overdoing documentation proliferates a large number of small requirements and spec documents every time someone changes a system or interface. For a system of any complexity, before long you have your spec distributed around several hundred assorted word, excel, visio and even powerpoint files. When this happens you lose clarity about what is current or even whether you have located and identified all pertinent documentation.
The BRD-SRD-Tech spec progression is based on an assumption that the business signs off the BRD, a business analyst signs off the SRD against requirements documented in the BRD and the technical specification is signed off against the SRD. This generates a web of sign-offs, multiple documents with redundant information and makes it difficult and clumsy to keep the spec documents up to date.
Because of this, subsequent requirements documentatation tends to take the form of a series of change request and supplemental requirement and spec docs, each with their own sign-off and audit process. You gain CYA and audit trail (or at least the appearance of an audit trail), but you lose clarity. There is now no definitive reference document for the system and it is difficult to establish what is current or relevant to any particular activity. The net result is that your business analysis process gets bogged down in forensic research, which adds overheads and latency to delivery schedules.
A spec document should be built in such a way that there is one definitive reference for any given system or subsystem. The document should be kept up to date and versioned. Get a good technical documentation tool like Framemaker, so your process can scale, and the document has some structural integrity of the sort lacking on Word.
For me the only real document I ever use is a spec. The more detail the better. However it doesnt need to be all completed at one time, and it doesnt need to be particularly formal. What is far more useful to me than documents that are checked and signed and double checked and double signed is always being able to get the latest version of a document. And being able to talk to people about what they have written, and get a decision in the case of any ambiguity. this is far more useful to me than anything else.
To sum up: a spec is the only document I have ever found useful, however it pales in comparison to having a project manager who knows the proposed system inside out, and can make sensible decisions based on what they know.
Documentation is like tofu -- most people hate it until they realize that under the right conditions, it can be really good.
The problem is that what you consider documentation is mostly made for documentation's sake. You, as a developer, don't see any immediate value in the documents you produce because you know you can do your job without all the TPS reports which you're required to make.
Unfortunately, I'm going to wager that there's not a lot you can do about in a company where you're being forced to eat raw tofu all the time. You'll probably just have to suck it up and write the docs which your company requires, but you can at least do one thing... you can write documents which at least are useful to you, and you can pass them along with your code for others who will maintain it.
Aside from inline documentation, you could set up a wiki to be used by yourself and people on your team. This type of documentation is searchable, which is already a big plus to developers, plus it's more of a living document instead of a homework-like paper you had to write. You already post to SO, so just think of your documentation as pooling your knowledge in a more useful place.
What do you think are the most important documents for a project?
Different people have different needs: for example the documents which the owner needs (e.g. the business contract) aren't the same as the documents which QA needs.
What documents can be used in the long run by another developer?
IMO the most important document (except for the source code) is the functional specification: because what the software is supposed to do (as opposed to, what it is doing) is the one thing that can't necessarily be reverse-engineered. See also How does a good developer keep from creating code with a low bus hit factor?
User Stories, burndown chart, code
I'm a fan of the old 4+1 views:
Use Case view (a/k/a user stories). There are several forms: proper use cases, forward-looking use cases that aren't as well defined and epics which need to be decomposed.
Logical view. The "static" view. UML Class diagrams and the like work well here as a design document. This also includes request and response formats for various protocols. Here is where we document the RESTful requests and responses. This includes the REST URI design.
Process view. The "dynamic" view. UML activity diagrams, sequence diagrams and statecharts and the like for here for design documents. In some cases, simple narratives work well. In other cases, there's a State design pattern, and it requires a combination of class diagrams and statecharts to show how the stateful objects interact.
This also includes protocols (e.g. REST). Here is where we define any special processing for the various REST requests.
This also includes an authentication or authorization rules, and any other cross-cutting aspects like security, logging, etc.
Component view. The pieces we're building for deployment. This includes the stuff we depend on, the structure of the modules and packages, etc. This is often a simple component diagram or a list of components and their dependencies.
Deployment view. We try to generate this from the code as deployed. Since we're using Python, we use epydoc to create the API documentation. We also use Sphinx to import module documentation into this view of the software.
This also includes the parameters, settings, and configuration details.
This, however, isn't sufficient.
When projects start, you have to work up to this through a series of sprints.
The first sprints build just the use case view.
Subsequent sprints build an "architecture" to implement the use cases. The architecture document has 4+1 views, but at a high level of abstraction. It summarizes the structure of the model schemas, the requests and replies, the RESTful processing, other processing, the expected componentry, etc. It never has a Deployment view. We generally reference operator guide and API documents as the deployment view of an architecture.
Then design-and-construction sprints build (and update) detailed 4+1 view documents for various components.
Then release sprints build (and update) the deployment views.
From the project point of view, the most important documents are those that normally include the word Plan, such as the Project Plan, Configuration Management Plan, Quality Plan, etc.
What you are describing is common in process improvements, and normally responds to two major causes. One is that the system really is overeaching and getting in the way of real work being done. Another is actually answered in your question: it is not that the documents are only done for the sake of audits, and your focus should not just be how usefull is the doc for other developers, but for the project or the company as a whole.
One usually looks at things from it's own perspective, sometimes it's necessary to look at the general picture.