AdminIgor Sereda
(CEO / Founder, ALM Works)
My feedback
151 results found
-
2 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment An error occurred while saving the comment Hi David,
Thanks for your suggestion! It does make sense and it sounds doable through another Gadget, embeddable in Confluence.
Could you please clarify, what would be the desired parameters for this Confluence macro? From what I can tell, one would have to specify the issue, the structure and then all the parameters used to define Progress column. (Which are quite a few.) Would you need anything else?
Also, how would you like the result to look like?
As far as I remember, the external gadgets are shown in Confluence as separate blocks – but that needs checking. If you need to place such macro inline with some other text, that might be challenging.
Kind regards,
Igor -
1 vote
please see comments
An error occurred while saving the comment Hello,
Thanks for your feedback. I'm sorry, but I didn't fully understand your suggestion. What exactly would you like to see near the Epic and Version tab? What is the use case, can you explain how would you use Agile board and Structure?
Note that currently there's integration with Agile, but it is limited only to "Structure" section in the issue details on the Agile Board.
Kind regards,
Igor -
7 votes
should be possible with Structure 3.0
An error occurred while saving the comment Hi Samuel,
Correct, out of the box Structure 3.0 won't be able to do that, sorry. We have to prioritize. But it should be relatively easy to implement what you need based on Structure 3.0 platform. We'd like to do that in 3.x, but at the time we cannot commit to a specific plan.
However, I would suggest you to write us by email (support@almworks.com) a bit more about your use case, so that we can better understand it. This will also keep our attention on this issue.
Kind regards,
IgorAn error occurred while saving the comment Hello Samuel, Sean,
Structure 3 is around the corner -- beta is coming in a couple of weeks and full release a couple of months afterwards.
We'll have grouping by Assignee, so if the tasks are worked on by only one person, you can calculate totals per user. If you need to distribute time spent across multiple people, this, unfortunately, won't be there in 3.0 out of the box – we had to postpone a lot of stuff to get 3.0 out quicker. It should be easy though to implement this feature later or even as a separate plugin using Structure API.
Kind regards,
IgorAn error occurred while saving the comment Hi Sean,
Thanks for describing your use case. We're currently working on Structure 3.0, which, I believe, should have sufficient functionality to do what you need. (There's no ETA for 3.0 yet.)
Kind regards,
Igor -
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Hello Stephan,
Thank you for your suggestion! This is an interesting idea. We have planned features to add more view controls to the gadget, but in this way, through a perspective, it is more powerful.
Kind regards,
Igor -
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Hello Étienne, thanks for your suggestion.
This looks like a more sophisticated Status Rollup synchronizer. I don't see why we couldn't implement that, although building user interface for the configuration parameters would be tricky. Maybe we would resort to a text-like configuration, similar to a small program.
In any case, this is something we'd like to do, but at this moment I can't predict when we get to work on this.
Kind regards,
Igor -
2 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Hello Stephen,
Thank you for your suggestion and for clearly explaining the problems with the current version. We'll definitely work on exporting features in general and on this request in particular after the release of Structure 3.0.
Kind regards,
Igor -
1 vote
Planned in Structure 3
An error occurred while saving the comment Hello,
Thank you for your suggestion. If I understand correctly, you suggest building structures where, say, Assignees are the "parent" issues and the sub-issues are the actual tasks assigned to that person. Is that correct? In that case, it is actually coming very soon in Structure 3!
Kind regards,
Igor -
0 votes
Collecting requirements – please see comment
An error occurred while saving the comment Hi,
Thank you for the clarification! We'll consider such an improvement. It will be tricky to make rows higher without compromising the readability and usability of the whole grid, but we'll see what we can do.
Kind regards,
IgorAn error occurred while saving the comment Hello,
Thanks for your suggestion. Could you please expand on it a little?
When you say custom row heights, do you mean that each row may have a different height, or make all rows wider? Why?
Regarding export, what is the desired result? Right now you can export into Excel, does that not help? You can also open Printable page and copy/paste it into Word document.
Thanks!
Kind regards,
Igor -
1 vote
collecting requirements
An error occurred while saving the comment Hello,
So far you can resize the columns if you hover the mouse over the column headers and drag the bars that are separating the columns.
As for the vertical space, could you please give an example, what kind of fields would you like to show in more detail? Is it "Description" or some other fields?
Thanks!
Igor -
1 vote
collecting requriements – please see comments
An error occurred while saving the comment Hello Pekka,
Thanks for your suggestion. Did you try "Pin" button? It's on the toolbar, and you can also use keyboard shortcut "Ctrl+."
It's somewhat similar. Does it help in your case?
Kind regards,
Igor -
5 votes
Collecting requirements, please see comments.
An error occurred while saving the comment Hello Frank,
Thank you for describing your setup. Implementing SAFe is definitely very interesting to us, we ourselves have been looking into figuring out the best way to do it with Structure.
If you don't mind, I'd like to reach out to you for feedback, when we have a preview version of Structure 3 with some ideas about SAFe implementation. If you'd have a testing server with the copy of your real data where you can play around with Structure 3 to see if it works for you, it would be fantastic!
Thanks!
IgorAn error occurred while saving the comment Frank, thanks for this feature request!
Regarding Reports:
The problem there is that reports are provided by JIRA itself or other plugins, which are not aware of Structure.
There are multiple paths to address this: a) make them work with Structure (requires effort from other vendors), b) synchronize aggregate values with some specially designated custom field, which will then be used by the reports, c) reimplement the reports that you need in Structure.
(b) seems the cheapest way (it will need a synchronizer or a custom calculated field), but it will require custom fields (and maybe one custom field per structure). Does that sound like an acceptable solution? Could you tell a bit more, which reports are you using the aggregates in?
By the way, since in Structure 3.0 the same issue can be in different spots at the same time, it might have different accumulated values! How would you like to see that work out in a report?
Regarding JQL:
There are narrow limits to how JQL can be extended, however, we can do that again via a custom field, or via a function similar to the current structure() JQL function.
Kind regards,
Igor -
3 votes
Please see the comment
An error occurred while saving the comment Hello Alexey,
Thanks for your request. What if you have several "Development" and several "System Testing" issues under the same parent? Should every Development issue be linked with every Testing issue?
This is an interesting setup. It would be interesting to learn more how you use Structure. Perhaps there would be a better way to solve your tasks in Structure 3.0. If you're keen to share how you do things, please write my colleague Eugene at eugene@almworks.com.
As for implementing what you suggest as a feature, I must be honest – as there have been no requests for such feature from other users, I doubt we would do it in the nearest future.
However, synchronizers are pluggable. It's possible to write your own custom synchronizer, if you have development resources, or contract some Atlassian expert to do that for you, if you have budget. Let us know if you need some pointers.
Kind regards,
Igor -
3 votes
collecting requirements
An error occurred while saving the comment Hello Stepan,
Thanks for posting this suggestion. Do you use Structure for backlog management, or do you use JIRA Agile?
To implement this with Structure, we'll need to understand more about how you're using it for backlogs - could you please explain that in a bit more detail in an email to support@almworks.com?
Thanks!
Kind regards,
Igor -
1 vote
Needs clarification – please see comments.
An error occurred while saving the comment Hi Pat,
Thanks for the clarification, I think I got it. You're suggesting to change how Icons column (in your example, with Type and Priority) is displayed, adding the indentation just like in the Summary column - correct?
Could you please elaborate a bit, why is this needed? In my opinion, it would be visually noisy, but I'd like to see it from your point of view.
Alternatively, what if issue type icon was displayed in the Summary column, as a part of the overall summary? Something like:
.... (indentation) .... (T icon) (summary) - (the beginning of description)
Kind regards,
IgorAn error occurred while saving the comment Hi Pat, thanks for posting this idea.
I'm sorry, but I couldn't understand it clearly. What exactly do you suggest to indent and how? Could you please describe the use case?
Thanks!
Igor -
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Hi Kelly, thanks for your suggestions!
Indeed, revamping Manage Structure page is long due. We'll take your feedback as a starting point in it.
Kind regards,
Igor -
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Hi Pat,
Thanks for your suggestion! In Structure 3.0 we'll have something different - you will be able to open the same structure in two panels, side by side, and scroll each panel to an arbitrary position. You will then be able to move items (issues) from one panel to another.
Will that solve the problem you describe?
Kind regards,
Igor -
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Hi Pat,
Thanks for suggestion! Sounds like a good improvement, we'll work on it. But it will also require selection of a specific Agile board, where to take sprints from.
Kind regards,
Igor -
1 vote
(please see comments)
An error occurred while saving the comment Hi Jonathan,
Thanks for the explanation! But why do you need the users to be able to *add* issues to this structure? Could you limit the permissions to edit this structure to a certain user, who'd be the caretaker of this work package structure? Or do you also have other items besides work packages in the structure too (real issues, perhaps)? In that case, would it work if the permissions were different at different levels in the structure?
Kind regards,
IgorPS. Did you know that Structure also has API? Since you've already got your own JIRA plugin connecting issues to another system, you can also connect it with Structure and manage structures automatically! https://wiki.almworks.com/x/oYF7
An error occurred while saving the comment Hi Jonathan,
Thanks for your idea. Repeating from answers.atlassian.com:
"The reason is, a user should be able to create an issue, but he shouldnt be able to copy, delete oder cut the issue from the structure. Thats why he needs a higher permission than the view-permission.."
So what you are in fact looking for is a more fine-grained permission system, right? Could you please describe your setup in more detail? Who are these users who are allowed to add issues and why they shouldn't be able to move or remove them afterwards? What are these issues?
What happens if such user adds an issue accidentally, or places it in an incorrect position?
Kind regards,
Igor -
2 votes
Needs more details – please see comments.
An error occurred while saving the comment Hello Tim,
Thanks for your suggestion! This should be possible, however, I'd like to understand more about the task at hand. Could you please describe in more detail, what do you try to achieve, how this feature would help? What would happen with the structure after import? Will you need to reimport (and not create duplicate issues)?
Thanks!
Kind regards,
Igor -
expose a structure's "order" so JQL queries and filters can be created to list issues in that order.
9 votesAn error occurred while saving the comment Hello Jamie,
Thanks for your feedback. Making it possible for JIRA query / export result to be in the structure order is not very simple, due to JIRA's limitations.
However, it seems to me that you only need this once in a while. So what if, say, there's a button "export order to custom field". You press it, select a numeric custom field, and then run the export. Structure updates values in this custom field for all issues in the structure to 1, 2, 3, etc (or even in WBS notation - 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.2.1 etc). Then you can use JQL with "order by <customfield>".
Note that this is one-time operation, and there's a possibility of a conflict if two users export orders from different structures to the same custom field.
Would that work for you?
Also, regarding Excel export - could you please tell me which columns are in Project-incompatible format?
Kind regards,
IgorAn error occurred while saving the comment Hi Patrick, thanks for your comment! Unfortunately, there's no good solution when it comes to ORDER BY. Having an ORDER BY would mean having a custom field (one per structure!) where this order is represented (as with Rank in GreenHopper) and issues reindexed every time the order changes. It is doable though.
An error occurred while saving the comment The gadget is coming in the next version (1.2) within a couple of weeks.
An error occurred while saving the comment Hi Brendan, thanks for your idea!
Is the purpose only to show Structure in Confluence? We will have a gadget that will display the Structure widget on JIRA dashboard or in Confluence - so that you can also edit the Structure from there.
I'm not sure if "structure order" custom field makes much sense. It won't be indexable (otherwise any operation on structure would cause reindexing, which is unacceptably slow) - and therefore sorting or searching by that field would be very slow. It won't be consistent - because the "order" is not actually a property of a single issue, so there's possibility of timing issues (what happens if you rearrange structure while JQL result is being sorted).
Cheers,
Igor
David, thanks for the clarification.
I think we'll work on more Confluence integration with additional macros, and your example is a very good one. However, at this time I cannot promise you any release date for such feature.
Regarding colored bar with statuses – there's a complimentary plugin that adds this functionality (although not as a Confluence macro, but as a Structure column). Please check "status-bar-column" plugin in our wiki: https://wiki.almworks.com/x/y4J7
Kind regards,
Igor