...
See Choosing the indexing engine for the intrinsic qualities of this engine.
Note for Vertical Tables: The comparison tool will not show the differences in dependencies (see
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Table of Contents | ||
|---|---|---|
|
Tables and lists
We don’t flatten lists and tables anymore.
Bug scenario: None expected, this one will only make the users happier 🎉
...
Only the second column is used for the description
We only use the first cell as the body of the requirement. All the other cells are stored as properties, and the text of properties is not repeated in the cells.
...
Bug scenario 1: If your requirement key is not in the first column, or if your second column doesn’t contain the requirement description, then your requirement will have no excerpt and all text will be in various properties.
...
Rationale: Users didn’t understand why the same text was repeated in the description and properties. In most cases, the description of the requirement is indeed in the 2nd column, and in other situations, the RY Property macro can be used.
Links
We store the entire URL.
Bug scenario: If the URL of your Confluence changes, then links will point to the old URL.
Workaround: Reindex the pages and use the indexing comparison.
Rationale: When we are not using the entire URL, requirements displayed in Jira wouldn’t link to the correct page.
...
link’s relative URL:
...
Bug scenario: You query the Requirement Yogi REST API programmatically to display those requirements in your own software.
Workaround: You will have to render those links in your own software (That’s what we do in Jira).
Rationale: It is more future-proof when you change the URL of Confluence, which happens for all our customers who have a merger-acquisition.
Images
We save a lot more attributes, and we save relative links (as explained in the previous paragraph about relative URLs)
...
Bug scenario: None specific. It’s just a lot more data to save, and if image metadata changes often, it could look as modified between two baselines of the same requirement.
Rationale: Customers complained that we reformatted documents in v1, and images were reduced to their minimum, so we store the image as rendered by Confluence.
Vertical tables at the top of requirement pages
Scaffolding
...
Bug scenario: The comparison tool doesn’t show the differences, and upgrading those requirements doesn’t change their dependencies, but the next time they are indexed, dependencies will have changed.
Workaround: You will have to update your tables like this:
...
Rationale: Some customers would like to make other uses of the “parent” dependencies and this automatic dependency was disturbing to them. However, removing this system brought controversy, so we might reinstate it later.
Scaffolding
Configurations are varied, so please report any difference that is affecting your business.
Not Some Scaffolding arrangements are not supported when they contain requirement definitions:
...