Should Iteration of Response = Iteration of Review

Aug 1, 2008 at 2:27 PM
I've got 1.05 installed in VS2008 and used it to create a set of responses to a code review for the first time last night. Great tool, but I noticed that the responses I created defaulted to the root node of the Iterations tree. So, for a code review that is in \Project\Release\Iteration1, the responses are created in \Project. It seems that using the Iteration setting of the Code Review as the default for the responses might be a better idea.

Maybe our process is odd, I don't know. Since we have a lot of queries based on the Iteration, I have to go back into the response work item after creating it in the IDE and move it to the same iteration as the code review.

Am I way off here?

-jl
Aug 1, 2008 at 4:53 PM
Great point! I have added a new Issue pointing to this thread to be worked on There will be a little conditional logic necessary because not all work item types surface the iteration field, and those may have been used for the original request. It's certainly not a big deal and i don't see the harm in defaulting some of the fields to values of the original request.

I could see defaulting these fields, have any more in mind?
  • Area
  • Iteration
  • Discipline (although would it ever be any thing other than Development?... just in case though)

Thanks for the idea, this will be an excellent addition.
JB


Aug 1, 2008 at 10:36 PM
Area and Iteration are the biggies. The project on which I work has been released and is now in upgrade/maintain mode. As a result, the iterations looks something like the following:

-Project
     - Release 1
           - Iteration 1
           - Iteration 2
     - Release 2
           - Iteration 1
           - Iteration 2

As a result all the queries tend to group things according to this structure.

I think you've covered all the good candidate fields that might be copied from Review to Response. Thanks again for putting this on CodePlex.

-jl
Aug 23, 2008 at 2:13 AM
For those that reach this thread -  This idea was included in release 1.0.6

Thanks,
JB