Having problems with your account or logging in?
A lot of changes are happening in the community right now. Some may affect you. READ MORE HERE

UDAs Not Imported From Server A to Server B

UDAs Not Imported From Server A to Server B

Problem:

UDAs Not Imported From Server A to Server B

Resolution:

  • Product Name: CaliberRM
  • Product Version: Any supported Version
  • Product Component: Import/Export
  • Platform/OS Version: All

Question:

I"ve exported a project from server A using RM-Export to be imported into Server B. After using RM-Import to import the project into Server B, some customized UDAs are missing. Why is this so?


Answer:

Requirement Types are unique across a database. During Import, if a Requirement Type is found to be already present in the target database, the Target system will act as master and retain ALL properties of the Requirement Type.

This is to avoid conflicts in the target database as adding newer custom attributes to an existing Requirement Type would affect all existing projects too.

The workaround to update the current custom tabs with the new customized UDAs, so that the target system now has a placeholder or bucket for the data that is being imported.

In the case that was presented, the Requirement Type has the same name and the custom fields were not retained, but since the Requirement Type has the same name, we would presume that the customer expects the data to “merge” but it doesn’t as the Target acts as the master. To get the expected / desired result the best solution is to add custom tabs prior to import to the Requirement Type. This results in 1 Requirement Type with all desired properties, instead of two Requirement Types which confuses users and customers. Also Requirement Types heavily impact performance, and these should not be added in such a manner. Imagine where a customer does an import several times and their test system has changed a few iterations, or they have 4 smaller servers they combine into one. It would be a nightmare to decipher which of four “…functional requirements…” is the correct one to use, or had the properties they desired”.


Author : Elaine Lim & Scott Moore

Old KB# 16278

DISCLAIMER:

Some content on Community Tips & Information pages is not officially supported by Micro Focus. Please refer to our Terms of Use for more detail.
Version history
Revision #:
1 of 1
Last update:
‎2013-02-15 18:31
Updated by:
 
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Micro Focus. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation. Certain versions of content ("Material") accessible here may contain branding from Hewlett-Packard Company (now HP Inc.) and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company. As of September 1, 2017, the Material is now offered by Micro Focus, a separately owned and operated company. Any reference to the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks is historical in nature, and the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks are the property of their respective owners.