Per Östman

My feedback

  1. 1 vote
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Silk Central Feature Requests  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Per Östman commented  · 

    Second that. Makes perfect sense and would drastically improve the JIRA integration (which lacks sadly in a number of areas)

  2. 16 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Silk Central Feature Requests  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Per Östman shared this idea  · 
  3. 1 vote
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Silk Central Feature Requests  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Per Östman shared this idea  · 
  4. 41 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    planned  ·  3 comments  ·  Silk Central Feature Requests  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Per Östman commented  · 

    :-)
    Even though we have no immediate need for this feature, I agree with you that the speed at which features from this forum permeates into the product is all but blazingly fast.
    Looking at the competitive landscape, there are new vendors that are rapidly gaining ground with a more modern approach to things.

    SCTM is a competent product, but the lack of progress and responsiveness in keeping up the pace with the competition is getting worrysome...

  5. 25 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    5 comments  ·  Silk Central Feature Requests  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Silk Central 17.0 has had multi select, keyboard navigation and drag and drop introduced. Drag and drop available within the assignment of tests to requirements, requirements to tests, execution planning. Work will continue in next release to expand this within the tool.

    Each release of SIlk Central we review the UI aspects of the tool. The request for extending the drag&drop capabilities through the tool is on our backlog for inclusion in a furture release. At this point however we are unable to confirm the exact release but will update you when we can confirm this.

    Per Östman commented  · 

    Year 2015, SCTM on version 16, 25 votes on this topic - but still no sight of any UI update...
    Disappointing!

    Per Östman commented  · 

    Come on Microfocus! It is 2014 and drag&drop is to a UI what air is to humans - it is simply expected. Please, please, fix this asap - as well as multi-select!

    Per Östman commented  · 

    Related to this, I would like to request support for multi-select in all applicable parts of the application.

    Per Östman commented  · 

    Is there any update on this? Is this being considered at all?

    Per Östman shared this idea  · 
  6. 5 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Silk Central Feature Requests  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Per Östman shared this idea  · 
  7. 2 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Silk Central Feature Requests  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Per Östman commented  · 

    In general terms, I don't see why you need to set a limit. If there are performance limitations that lies behind the current limitation, you should instead describe these, and preferable indicate how to cope with them so that I as a customer can make the call for what is acceptable in my case.

    It's hard to specify a desired number since this may change over time, but to make a guesstimate that might work for us for the next couplpe of years, I would say ~20 - 25.

    But, as stated, I think that there should be no limit imposed by SCTM other than information about how SCTM is affected with increasing number of integrations as well as recommended mitigations.
    And you should of course also pay attention to how this integration is designed so that any negative effects are minimized.

    /Per

    Per Östman shared this idea  · 
  8. 1 vote
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    More Info Needed  ·  3 comments  ·  Silk Central Feature Requests  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Per Östman commented  · 

    This should be possible to for the case when one has defined an integration to an external requirement system - e g JIRA.

    It would be nice to be able to structure the imported requirements into folders to create a better overview.

    Per Östman commented  · 

    Maybe a scenario is better:
    Feature: Allow using folders to structure requirements logically
    In order to be able to structure requirements
    As a user
    I want to be able to put requirements in a folder hierarchy

    Scenario: Create a requirement in a given folder
    Given I have created a folder "A"
    When I mark the folder "A"
    And select to create a requirement
    Then a requirement should be created in the folder "A"

    That is, there should be a possibility to create logical structure of folders that one can create where I can put my requirements and any child requirements in.
    Much like you can create folder to put execution plans in, or folders on a computer in which you can store files.

    This has nothing to do with whether the requirement has any tests assigned or not.

    Per Östman shared this idea  · 
  9. 3 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Silk Central Feature Requests  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Per Östman shared this idea  · 
  10. 17 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    3 comments  ·  Silk Central Feature Requests  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Per Östman supported this idea  · 
  11. 26 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Silk Central Feature Requests  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Per Östman supported this idea  · 
    Per Östman commented  · 

    This is actually related to other areas in SCTM.
    The same issue is present in the requirements management integration - at least for Atlassian Greenhopper.

    We have this situation today, where we develop a product stack consisting of many products.
    When product management plans for future releases, they typically define new requirements in many products in the stack. In order to handle these, I would similarly need the capability to have multiple requirements management integrations in one SCTM project that represents the testing efforts for a version of the product stack.
    Should I post this idea as a separate one, or would you prefer to treat them as one?

  12. 7 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Silk Central Feature Requests  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Per Östman supported this idea  · 
  13. 32 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Silk Central Feature Requests  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Per Östman commented  · 

    In addition, I would like to see an integration with LDAP that hands over authentication to the LDAP system entirely. I e if I choose to use LDAP, I would be able to manage SCTM access for the users in the LDAP system in SCTM without recreating them in SCTM.

  14. 4 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  Silk Central Feature Requests  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Per Östman shared this idea  · 
  15. 5 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    4 comments  ·  Silk Central Feature Requests  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Please Review the manual execution planning module as this will allow you to within the assigned tests within a test cycle be able to sort / group for example against your configurations.

    The test which are assigned to a manual tester within the manual test assigned to me panel on the dashboard can then be grouped according to user requirements.

    Per Östman commented  · 

    OK, so digging through the knowledge base, I discovered that configurations in cycles are available via right click on marked tests.
    This is kind of confusing. Is there a difference between configurations in cycles and configuration suites for execution plans? If so, what?

    Per Östman commented  · 

    Let me clarify.
    Let's say I have two features that has 10 tests each.
    For each feature, I have logically (or for some othe reason) divided these 10 tests into two buckets. This division is what I want to use for tracking - i e I want to track execution of the tests in feature1.bucket1 etc. We use execution plans for this purpose.

    Since I have legacy tests and execution plans using this approach, I would like to be able to take advantage of the added feature of manual execution planning (e g start/end date).
    Hence, I would like to be able to use my existing division of tests into logical buckets (my existing execution plans) when working with testing cycles.

    However, since cycles only allow for adding individual test cases, this is not psosible.

    I'm not sure what you mean by using "configuration testing". Is it configuration suites you mean? I cannot seem to use this in conjunction with testing cycles?

    The definition of configuration testing in the manual indicates that the purpose of this is to test with different combinations of supported hardware/software. We use this to some extent to track e g testing on different platforms.

    If needed, I can continue this discussion over email.

    /Per

    Per Östman shared this idea  · 
  16. 1 vote
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Silk Central Feature Requests  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Per Östman shared this idea  · 
  17. 1 vote
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Silk Central Feature Requests  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Per Östman shared this idea  · 
  18. 7 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Silk Central Feature Requests  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Per Östman shared this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base