Created On:  12 October 2011

Problem:

When using the default values for Priority that are available in CaliberRM the mapping to SilkCentral Test Manager works correctly. For example the following requirement has a Priority set in CaliberRM as "Essential".



When I set the mapping up in SilkCentral Test Manager as follows:



The Priority is then set in SilkCentral Test Manager correctly as "Critical".



However in CaliberRM it is possible to edit the available values for Requirement Priority by performing the following steps.

1. In CaliberRM go to File - Admin - System Attributes.



2. Select "Requirement Priority" and click Edit.



3. Double-click on the value you wish to edit and enter the desired value, in the example below I have changed Essential to "Must Have".



Now when you view the requirement in CaliberRM the priority is set as "Must Have".



If you then Synchronize Changes in SilkCentral Test Manager the requirement does not get updated, note the lack of the Flagged Updated icon. The priority will also remain the same if you change it to another edited value in CaliberRM.




Why do the Priority values I have set in CaliberRM not map correctly to SilkCentral Test Manager?

Resolution:

The reason for this behaviour is that if you are mapping the CaliberRM priority field directly to the SilkCentral Test Manager field the only supported values in CaliberRM are:

"Essential", "Useful", "Desirable", "Unassigned"

Or they can match the values available in SilkCentral Test Manager, namely:

"Critical", "High", "Medium", "Low"

If you need to use alternate values in CaliberRM the best thing to do is to create a custom requirement property of type "Text" in SilkCentral Test Manager. In this example it is called "Caliber_Property".



Then setup the mapping so that the CaliberRM priority field is mapped to this custom requirement property "Caliber_Priority".



Now when Synchronize Changes is run all the Contraints Requirements get updated and the edited priority value is displayed in SilkCentral Test Manager.

Incident #2540652