Bug 802358 - [RFE] extended attribute
Summary: [RFE] extended attribute
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: TCMS
Classification: Other
Component: Application
Version: Devel
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
: 4.0
Assignee: Yang Ren
QA Contact: Nobody
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2012-03-12 10:48 UTC by Dalibor Pospíšil
Modified: 2022-03-14 03:25 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Dalibor Pospíšil 2012-03-12 10:48:28 UTC
For developing of new features we often need to create a new attribute to test plan, test run or test case.

To allow easyly start alpha testing without misusing some alredy existing attributes like "Notes" we would appreciate one attribute "Extended attributes" which would contain a table with key-value pairs. Both key and value would be strings, moreover the value should allow line separators.

After successful testing and decision that the particular key(s) is(are) needed we would request the real attribute and migrate data from the Extended attributes.

This would be better way than request a attribute which possibly will not be necessary or misuse other attribute where the structure is not defined and therefore the data migration could be complicated.

Comment 1 yawei Li 2012-05-17 08:31:51 UTC
we need consider if this is a general requirement for all qe team, as we won't add too many specific fields that will confuse others. 

This new feature will be considered in TCMS 4.0.

Comment 2 Dalibor Pospíšil 2012-06-12 11:45:47 UTC
There is one candidate which could be solved by this. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822799. There should by just an XMLRPC interface to this attribute or the exact key value respectively.

Comment 3 Petr Šplíchal 2012-06-13 15:34:04 UTC
Will it be possible to get say a hundreds of test cases in one
xmlrpc call including the extended attributes? Otherwise this
could present a performance issue to query for each of them
separately.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.