RQM Test Lab Management: a cheat sheet

December 10, 2014

Recently, I’ve visited a Southern state of the US for a business trip. Among other topics, I’ve focused on the Test Lab management capabilities of RQM.

Request and Reservations

(**)

I remember that, during my initial grasp of this part of RQM, the information provided in various places (see the References section below) helped me a lot. Nonetheless I consider that it was not quick enough.

Maybe because I missed a synthetic view of the following aspects in a one-stop-table. Such document would aim at providing you both with a rapid comprehension of the features and a convenient communication medium around:

  • The Test Lab Management assets
  • Their associated definition
  • From which artefact they could be created (*)
  • What artifacts they could serve at creating (*)
  • Whether they could serve (or not) as a basis for creating a Request or a Reservation
  • Whether a view showing all the Reservations is available (or not)

As a consequence, I ended up creating the following table / cheat sheet:

rqm-5-0_test-lab-management-cheat-sheet_landscape-format-COMPLETE

CLICK to ENLARGE the table

This table revealed useful during discussions with customer. I hope this content could also help you:

      • At speeding up your understanding of the currently available capabilities in RQM, and
      • At facilitating the decision of the mapping between your own testing shop terminology with the RQM one.

References:

(*): from the RQM GUI only here. REST APIs and other importer tools are excluded of the scope of this blog post.

(**): image borrowed from article: [devWorks] “Use RQM to manage lab assets in shared lab” (Nov 2013)


Direct access to CLM (RTC/RQM/RDNG/DM) Help / InfoCenter: a cheat sheet

September 16, 2014

Have you figured out that the CLM InfoCenter was relocated to a central Knowledge Center for a while now? As known by all of us (but often forgotten as well) the product documentation is the CORE/PRIMARY source of information (before reaching out to any other one).

But last time you were questioning a specific feature of the CLM product, how long did it take you to get to the right web page? more than 10 seconds?

If you ran a Google search (e.g.”RTC infocenter 5.1“), where you pointed to the specific product (RTC/RQM/RDNG/DM) and version (v3.x,v4.x,v5.x) you looked for ? Or, for whatever referencing reason, did it end up… missing its finest target?

In such case, we share this annoyance as I figured out the first returned results do NOT systematically match with my searching criterias (as for today, the search I provided earlier returned me with links to older product versions, some Jazz.net wikis, etc.)

As a result, I came up with idea of providing a “quick access list” (or cheat sheet) to get it systematically right and quick:

Direct Access to CLM KnowledgeCenter

CLM (Collaborative Lifecycle Management)
RTC (Rational Team Concert)
RQM (Rational Quality Manager)
RDNG (Rational Doors Next Generation)
RDM (Rhapsody Design Manager)
RSA DM (RSA Design Manager)
Related reporting products
Insight (Rational Insight)
RPE (Rational Publishing Engine)

I hope this blog post could save you some time and generated a positive side-effect: having the new Knowledge Center positioned higher in the returned results of your future web searches!


CLM,RTC,RQM,RRC/RDNG: recommendations and “educated guesses” for limitations

September 5, 2013

As part of the Jumpstart team, I help our customers in their CLM adoption and deployments. Customers raise questions on the sizing of their CLM environment, the topologies to adopt, etc. The questions I hear most often are:

  • How many users (total or concurrent) can my CLM environment support ?
  • RTC rollout at our company is close to reach a second milestone (additional teams will use the tool). What planning (HW/SW) should we have wrt. these modifications?
  • We have this huge number of CLM (RTC/RQM/RRC-RDNG) artefacts. Will my CLM environment still handle this without any performance degradation as we continue adding artefacts into our repository ?
  • What are the intrinsic CLM product limitations and – if one is concerning me – what approach should I adopt to keep on working smoothly with my CLM ?
  • etc.

First of all, depending on the CLM version you’re running, central places to check are the CLM 2011 Sizing Guide and the CLM 2012 Sizing Guide which include an “Artifact Sizing Guidelines” section summarizing “the recommendations on artifact sizing that will ensure optimal performance of the repository when the data sizes increase significantly“.

Foreword to the reader:

  • This post follows the “cheat sheet/how to” format I’ve used in earlier posts for CLM Reporting or OSLC-related topics. As a consequence, if you’re already familiar with this post (and know exactly what you’re looking for), you may want to navigate directly to the tables: JTS tableRTC tableRQM tableRRC/RDNG table.
  • If you’re interested by a similar content for Enterprise Modernization products (i.e. RTC EE, RDz, RD&T, RAA, etc.)  by IBM Rational, check this dedicated blog post.

Now back to the core of this post:

Tables

Tables are provided. OK. But what do we call a Limit and an Alert zone ?

  • Quantified data: the (maximum) number of….
  • Limit: a hard limit of the product. Meaning that you cannot go beyond this value.
  • Alert zone: based on experiences with customers, internal tests and development teams, it’s around these values that we start seeing performance issues. If you’re approaching these values, we’d suggest you monitor your system closely to detect any performance degradation before it becomes critical. WARNING: while provided figures are educated guesses and practical rules of thumbs, you could still find that your environment functions perfectly beyond these limits  (e.g. if your environment is particularly fine-tuned). In a similar way,  some intense CLM usage could show that these recommended values are too optimistic…

As a consequence, it’s important to understand this post is NOT an attempt for replacing existing resources (see the References section) that provide extensive views on CLM performance and tuning topics. We encourage administrators and project managers to read them as they both include finer-grain information and insist on the key aspect of not loosing the “bigger picture”.

What’s the use of the following tables then ?

Answer: they’re here to HELP YOU quickly figure out if you’ve reached some known CLM limitation or if you’re getting close to a threshold  (again: on the basis of a typical/average environment) requiring due monitoring of your environment.  To this regard, these tables are COMPLEMENTARY with existing resources and concentrate information ALREADY available but yet disseminated on multiple medias/sites/forum posts/etc.

What if… you can’t find what you’re looking for in the following tables ?

Answer: in such case, there MAY not be soft/hard limit on it. You should check the References section at the bottom of this post and check for the latest information (esp. from the CLM sizing guides).

Ξ

JTS
Quantified data Limit Alert zone Reference(s)
Concurrent user sessions  – 400-2000+ Purple Book
Jazz user id length  – 250 bytes Jazz.net forum

Ξ

RTC 
Quantified data Limit Alert zone Reference(s)
Concurrent user sessions  –  300-500+ (per CCM instance) Purple Book
   Example: “CLM Sizing Strategy” (v4.0.6 – April 2014)  –   – 100-600 concurrent users. See report/environment details.
   Example: “Performance Report” (v5.0 – June 2014) 1200 concurrent users. See report/environment details.
Planning – Work-items
   WIs in a plan (<= v2.0) 2048 Jazz.net article
   WIs in a plan (>=v2.0.0.1)  –  250-500+ (impacts plan display time + questions ability from user to grasp several 100s of WIs in one plan) Jazz.net forumJazz.net forumPurple Book, RTC 4.0.3 Plan performance improvement
   WIs in a project area/repository  – Jazz.net forum, Jazz.net article
   WI attachment size  50 MB  If increasing this value or systematically using large attachments: be aware of the possible impact on DB growth and CLM performance in general. See how to change this value in TechNote, Jazz.net forum
   WI “Estimate” attribute  1 year  – Jazz.net forum. A  presentation-enforced limit.
   WI custom attribute length > Small String (*) 250 bytes Jazz.net article (RTC v4.0)
   WI custom attribute length > Medium String (*) 1000 bytes Jazz.net article (RTC v4.0)
   WI custom attribute length > Large String (*) 32768 bytes Jazz.net article (RTC v4.0), Enhancement 160469
   WI custom attribute length > Medium HTML (*) 1000 bytes Jazz.net article (RTC v4.0)
   WI custom attribute length > Large HTML (*) 32768 bytes Jazz.net article (RTC v4.0)
Queries
   Query results
 1000 results Jazz.net forum. Note: this default value could be increased but be aware of the possible negative impact on usability / server performance.
Planning – Timelines
   Timelines  2048  (see recommended approach in the forum post’s answer) Jazz.net forum
SCM
   Files/folders in a single component (CLM 2011)  50K (split into multiple components if required) Jazz.net forumJazz.net article
   Files/folders in a single component (CLM 2012, RTC 5.0)  100K (split into multiple components if required) Jazz.net forumJazz.net article, Jazz.net forum,
   Suspended change-sets by individual user  300 (for not slowing down operations) Jazz.net article
   Components in workspaces and streams  500 (as tested by IBM) Jazz.net article , Task 176441 (in progress)
Build
  Build definitions associated to a build engine ( < v4.0.3) 2048 TechNote
OSLC
   oslc_cm.pageSize parameter (when querying work-items) 100 Jazz.net RFEJazz.net forum

(*): text-based

Ξ

RQM
Quantified data Limit Recommendation Reference(s)
Concurrent user sessions  –  100-150+ (per QM instance) Purple Book
   Example: “CLM Sizing Strategy” (v4.0.6 – April 2014)  – 350-500 concurrent users. See report/environment details.
   Example: “Performance Report” (v5.0 – June 2014) 1000 concurrent users. See report/environment details.
TER (Test Execution Record) name length  250  – Jazz.net forum
TCERs bulk generated from test plan wizard  500 Work-around article, RQM defect, WAS maxParamPerRequest
TCERs bulk changed/removed at once tbd  tbd Jazz.net forum, Jazz.net forum, WAS maxParamPerRequest
Records in a datapool / test data 2000  – Jazz.net enhancement
Character limit: Description field of a Lab Resource 250 Jazz.net enhancement
Number of categories defined on an artifact type 50 RQM defect, RQM defect
Feed entries per page ( < 4.0.4)  512  – Jazz.net forum, RQM defect
“Large Record Count” (SQL query result set generated by OOTB BIRT reports) ( >= 4.0.5)  –  10K TechNote, Jazz.net defect
Attachment size using UI Jazz.net enhancement
Attachment size using CLI ( Command-Line Interface) ( >= 4.0)  50 Mo Jazz.net article (for how to change this default value, see the Comments section). Note: if increased, be aware of the possible negative impact on usability / server performance.
TCERs runnable off-line and at once (>=4.0) 50 4.0 InfoCenter

Ξ

RRC-DNG/RDNG
Quantified data Limit Recommendation Reference(s)
Concurrent user sessions (< v4.0.1)  200+ Purple Book
 (>= v4.0.1)  400+ Purple Book
   Example: “CLM Sizing Strategy” (v4.0.6 – April 2014) 300-400 concurrent users. See report/environment details.
   Example:  “Performance Report” (v5.0 – June 2014) 400 concurrent users. See report/environment details.
Coexistence with DM (Design Manager) on the same box (in v.4.x and v5.0.x)  Incompatible  – Jazz.net forum (related to the converter component)
Instances of RM application per JTS (<= v4.0.6) 1 4.0.3 InfoCenter, Jazz.net article, Plan Item
RM Projects per RM application / JTS  200+ Jazz.net article
Number of undos in edit mode  20 TechNote
Number of displayable links (>= v4.0.1)
  • 60 (IE7)
  • 100 (other browsers)
Jazz.net forum
Number of artifacts selectable in the Artifact view 50 Enhancement 71080, Jazz.net forum
Using ReqIF
   Imports to DNG from DOORS (>= v4.0.1)
  • 5000 modules
  • 200K objects (total)
Jazz.net article, Jazz.net forum
   max depth supported for import 3 Jazz.net forum

References:

  1. CLM 2012 Sizing Report

  2. CLM 2011 Sizing Guide
  3. Rational Team Concert (RTC) 2.0 sizing guide
  4. Rational Team Concert 4.x sizing report for z/OS

  5. The Deployment wiki
  6. Jazz Performance: A Guide to Better Performance” by D. Toczala (Feb 2013). A.k.a the “Purple Book
  7. Sizing and tuning guide for RDNG (Rational DOORS Next Generation) 5.0

Acknowledment/Credit: thanks to the authors of the cited documents above and more generally to the Jazz community who collaboratively provides accurate information through library articles, forums questions & answer, etc..


A RQM usage anti-pattern: multiplying test scripts associated to a test case

May 22, 2013

During discussions with customers who start using Rational Quality Manager,  I sometimes get the following questions:

I’ve associated MULTIPLE test scripts to my test cases. Now when I execute them, the LAST execution status returned when selecting a specific test script OVERRIDES previous execution status (with a different test script associated).

Seems like RQM is “loosing” previous execution status each time !  This is a bug, right ?

Actually no, this behavior is NOT weird. You need to get the logic of the RQM tool wrt the semantic of the relationship between test cases and test scripts.

RQM-TestCaseTestScript-nm-Linking

Let’s recap it here :

  • A Test Case answers the question : “what am I going to test ?” It defines the things you need to validate to ensure the system is working correctly and is written to be environment-agnostic.
  • As sketched in the model above, you could have AS MANY test scripts associated to a test case than desired…

BUT there are some best practices associated to this model. You can have multiple test scripts associated to a test case provided each test script tests the SAME functionality. This would typically be the case for:

  • Running a test case in different test environments (thus implying non identical steps).
  • When you have a manual test script and a robotic test script (e.g. RPT, RFT, Selenium, etc.)

Once this basis is stated, customer figure out they have followed a RQM anti-pattern which needs to be fixed.

While the solution to adopt is very dependent on the customer context, a possible remediation includes a refactoring work through the splitting of the test case content into several test cases, the merging of the multiple test scripts into a single test script (provided this doesn’t create an ugly monolithic test piece), etc.

Question: for running a test case in different test environments (not an anti-pattern), where shall the choice of the test script be done ?

RQM-2TCERS-2TestScripts

Answer:

  • As an example, above snapshot presents the TCER section of the test case TC01.
  • It includes 2 TCERs (which were generated for 2 different test environments: TC01_Chrome… and TC01_Firefox…). Test script Script for Chrome addresses TC01_Chrome… environment and Test script Script for Firefox addresses TC01_Firefox… environment.

Using the CLM templates…

May 15, 2011

Once you have completed the “Money That Matters” tutorial on your CLM Beta 3 install, you certainly feel like Bob, Deb, Marco, Rebecca and Tanuj are familiar to you.

Having a step back, would you wonder : “How would I create my own Lifecycle Application Project – let’s say- from scratch ?

Getting Started section of the documentation is here to guide you.

Let’s focus on RQM for a while. Its basic workflow still in mind :

would its enterprise version (you just saw if you clicked the above image) makes you wonder how adhoc process should be implemented by your team ?

Actually, RQM provides templates which you can take benefit from : for Test Plans, Test Cases, Test Suites. You can also create your own ones or customize them!

And back to CLM :  you have templates for Lifecycle Projects (also with customization capability)

Tip of Day : for CLM Beta 3 release installed on Windows machines, make sure you DON’T install the Build System Toolkit at a location including SPACE CHARACTERS (like C:\Program Files). It doesn’t support it (compilation errors are raised).


%d bloggers like this: