Question

This is a pretty 'pie in the sky' request, but can you add some sort of Requirements Management features?

Users would be able to add requirements (separate from Issues, or maybe it's just a separate area w/in a project), and each requirement would have:

• ID
• Source (think parent case, except reqs can have multiple sources, and not all of them would be other requirements)
• Verification method (Test/Analysis/Inspection)
• Status
• Description

And then the requirement would have a verification workflow of some sort, performed by someone, and possibly witness/confirmed by someone else. Also some sort of workflow for requesting a deviation from a requirement.

Things to associate with each requirement:

• Issues related to the design/implementation/test/analysis/verification of meeting the requirement
• Links to/attachments of documentation detailing analysis done
• Links to/attachments of documentation detailing tests performed

EDIT: I realize I'm basically asking you to start competing with Rational DOORS and the like, but maybe you can do this for a lot less and appeal to smaller companies that need to compete with the big companies that can afford DOORS, etc?

Case FC1944048

Answer 1

I'm with you on this request, but I think it could be implemented much more easily. If you had the ability to create a case/feature link by selecting text in the wiki, you'd be 90% of the way there. The basic linking mechanism already exists, as does the simple, one-line case creation, so there could possibly be some code reuse there (although I don't profess to know anything about the inner workings of the app).

Status reporting would already be there because you could pull up the case list of features and sort by status to see what has been completed.

One thing that would be nice, though, would be to link from the case back to an anchor in the wiki since you could be looking at a pretty large document/spec. This would support the two-way traceability goal in cmmi, too.

Answer 2

This sounds like a great potential enhancement to FogBugz!

I have a feeling that it's an area where different users might have different ways they want it implemented, so it might be best achieved through a plugin. The plugin architecture is quite powerful. One could use it to add fields to cases and wikis to tie them together, add chunks of UI in cases and wikis, hook into processes like committing cases (for workflow and the like), and add pages to FogBugz to manage your requirements in a unified way.

If you need help with how to implement this, feel free to email us directly.

Answer 3

I would caution against over-complicating FogBugz, as its biggest appeal currently is ease-of-use (and low barrier to entry). FogBugz is easy for development teams to adopt even before they have a real development process in place. As such it becomes a tool to help the team develop a process. FogBugz should support more mature development teams' requirements also (and it does in many ways, esp. through the plugin architecture), but the basic version must be kept basic to make the barrier to entry as low as possible.

Some other products out there started out simple, but have now grown to become the unsightly ogres their creators once hated.

Michael