|
[
Permlink
| « Hide
]
Mike Aizatsky added a comment - 10/Nov/04 03:29 AM
I hope it will be same navigator and results could be shown in confluence by {jira} macros
Cool. Don't you think that "linkedToIssue=XX-123" looks better? Are you planning to add parameter for limiting link type?
Actually - this issue navigator is dumb - it will just be displaying the issues that it is provided.
The view issue page will construct the URL using the issues that it knows about. So I don't think it is what you are originally thinking. I realise that this won't allow you to use it via a Confluence URL, but I had never heard that requirement before Doing it the way you are after would require indexing both issues when a link is created (ie index the links) and we don't currently do that. This is a temporary solution (until we expand the way we index and search to be pluggable), and we hoped it would solve the original requirement that we were told. If there are other requirements - can you let me know? Actually, the original idea discussed was to have a "search" which will display all the issues linked to the current one. That way it will be possible to to show the issues from view page and also to better catalogue your issues, by linking them to other meta-issues. While the way to display static list of issues is better than nothing, it's still quite limited.
BTW, why do you need to change indexing scheme? You're already showing issues linked to the given one on view page. Why isn't it possible to display the same info but in navigator? All 'searches' for issues go straight to the file based index, and don't hit the database directly.
As we don't index that data, we can't display it. I agree that it is quite limited - I want to get workarounds to you as soon as possible. Don't see anything wrong with hitting the database to find issues linked to the given one.
There is no problem with it - there is just no current mechanism to hit the database in the issue navigator.
This would involve writing a lot of code, which will disappear as soon as we make the indexing / searching pluggable. This can be done as a custom field now. Unfortunately we won't be able to get to this before 3.3
I hope this won't allow users to see links to issues they don't have permission to browse. (See http://jira.atlassian.com/browse/JRA-905
 ) I want to be able to see all linked issues in the table view so I can perform bulk functions on all related issues.
When filtering all issues linked to a particular issue, it should be possible also to select the TYPE of link,
e.g. just to search all Blockers, or all Duplicates, and so on. Bettina Zucker I am not sure of the exact scope of this recommended Improvement, but ANYTHING that would provide better support for Linked Issues in the Navigator and in the View definitions would do wonders for the usability of your product. My client often teeters on "dumping" the product because of the lack of these basic features.
Specifically, we should have the ability to: 1. Display MORE than the issue Link Key in the Issue Navigator (Linked Issue Summary & Desc would be great as minimum requirements) 2. Select - AT LEAST - the Linked Issue Key in View queries. In this way, a listing of all linked issues to a particular "related" issue could be generated. Is this what this Improvement would handle or do I need to suggest another Improvement? Also, when is 3.7 scheduled for release? Hello everybody,
I solved my own question about displaying links in the navigator separated by link type by using a custom field type plugin. See: http://forums.atlassian.com/thread.jspa?threadID=13601 Using this cf type you can also search links of a given type, define a filter for this search, and make 1d and 2D statistics on the filter, The plugin can be extended to show other information of the linked issues, like Peter would like to have. Cheers |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
Improvement
Open
Major
Show issue linked to another issue.
The original requirement was to see the issues linked to another issue, because you couldn't display all the information about an issue.