Project

General

Profile

Actions

Feature #7849

open

custom issue relation types

Added by Markus Valle-Klann over 13 years ago. Updated over 1 year ago.

Status:
New
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
-
Category:
Issues
Target version:
-
Start date:
2011-03-13
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Estimated time:
Resolution:

Description

In different projects I am using redmine with a number of custom trackers. To define relations between the tickets I would very much like to use other relations than the ones currently available.

For instance, we have trackers for requirements and features. And we would like to be able to define an "implements" relation: feature implements requirement.

The most sustainable solution would be to be able to define custom relation types much like custom fields. I searched for this on the redmine redmine but didn't find anything.

From looking at source:trunk/app/models/issue_relation.rb it seems fairly straightforward to factor out the relation types and define them like custom fields, including symmetry relationships between the types etc.

As we don't have any redmine development capabilities at the moment I hope more people would be interested to have that feature and somebody interested in implementing it :-) With some guidance and advise from experienced redmine developers my team might also be able to contribute to the development.


Related issues

Related to Redmine - Feature #13690: Allow plugins to be able to add relationship typesNew

Actions
Related to Redmine - Feature #15340: Custom field referencing other ticketsNew

Actions
Related to Redmine - Feature #16117: Add a new type of related issue: "exclusive" New

Actions
Related to Redmine - Feature #18034: related issue improvementsClosed

Actions
Related to Redmine - Feature #25384: Add new issue relation type: Obsoletes and Obsoleted_byNew

Actions
Related to Redmine - Feature #26786: Complex issue relationNew

Actions
Related to Redmine - Feature #7629: Add "causes" and "caused by" issue relationshipsNew2011-02-15

Actions
Has duplicate Redmine - Feature #11276: Missing related issues "regressed" and "regressed by" (for experts scenario)Closed

Actions
Has duplicate Redmine - Defect #11311: New issue relationship Closed

Actions
Actions #1

Updated by Johan Larsson over 12 years ago

+1
Would also like to add custom issue relation types.

Actions #2

Updated by Laurent Dairaine over 12 years ago

+1

Actions #3

Updated by Kelvin Chen almost 12 years ago

+1
Would like to have this function as well :)

Actions #4

Updated by Matt Andrews almost 12 years ago

+1

Actions #5

Updated by Adrián A. almost 12 years ago

+1

Actions #6

Updated by Mauro Chojrin almost 12 years ago

+1. In my case, we use support tickets as QA tasks. It would be really helpfull to define relations such as "Tested in" (with simmetry in "Is tested by"). This feature combined with a custom workflow woudl definitely be a great improvement of my daily workflow.

Actions #7

Updated by Fred Giusto over 11 years ago

+1
That's a very good idea

Actions #8

Updated by Bo Hansen over 11 years ago

+1

Actions #9

Updated by Tomas K over 11 years ago

+1

Actions #10

Updated by Dipan Mehta over 11 years ago

+1. This one would be a great addition to many workflows.

Actions #11

Updated by Lauren Copeland about 11 years ago

+1 This feature would be useful.

Actions #12

Updated by Brandon Liles about 11 years ago

+1 Definitely agree. In our organization we assign review tickets for another developer to review our work. We currently use relations to track the review ticket in relation to the work ticket, but it would be nice to have a relationship type for this.

Actions #13

Updated by Jeremy Thomerson about 11 years ago

+1 I just found this as well and it would be great to be able to add symmetrical relation types either by plugins, or especially through the admin UI.

Actions #14

Updated by Toshi MARUYAMA over 10 years ago

  • Related to Feature #15340: Custom field referencing other tickets added
Actions #15

Updated by Mikhail Grinfeld over 10 years ago

+1

Actions #16

Updated by Toshi MARUYAMA almost 10 years ago

  • Description updated (diff)
Actions #17

Updated by Toshi MARUYAMA almost 10 years ago

  • Related to Feature #16117: Add a new type of related issue: "exclusive" added
Actions #18

Updated by Toshi MARUYAMA almost 10 years ago

Actions #19

Updated by Toshi MARUYAMA about 7 years ago

  • Related to Feature #25384: Add new issue relation type: Obsoletes and Obsoleted_by added
Actions #20

Updated by Toshi MARUYAMA almost 7 years ago

Actions #21

Updated by Go MAEDA over 6 years ago

  • Related to Feature #7629: Add "causes" and "caused by" issue relationships added
Actions #22

Updated by Vito Marolda over 5 years ago

+1 For this feature: our workflow would be "feature x implement request y". Anyway, a new type of custom field which accepts issues (#15340), with single or multiple choices, would also suit this need, maybe with better querying capabilities.

Actions #23

Updated by Yasu Saku over 4 years ago

+1

Actions #24

Updated by Gunasekar R over 4 years ago

+1

Actions #25

Updated by shawn freeman over 4 years ago

+1

It looks like many of the "relationship types" have specific meanings and probably corresponding code level behaviors. I can guess that this is why this isn't already something we can configure for ourselves, like states.

I would like to suggest that the scope of this RFE be focused only on the "Related To" relationship. Specifically:
  1. Allow the admin to define any number of aliases for "Related To".
  2. Present the list of "Related To" aliases in the drop-down as if they were each unique.
  3. Leave the underlying code behavior as-is.
Actions #26

Updated by Stefan Lindner almost 4 years ago

+1

Actions #27

Updated by Fabien Durand over 3 years ago

+1

Actions #28

Updated by shawn freeman almost 3 years ago

Related to #4799?

Actions #29

Updated by Denis Lebedev almost 3 years ago

+1

Actions #30

Updated by Roberto Tavares over 2 years ago

+1

Actions #31

Updated by Daniel N about 2 years ago

+1

Actions #32

Updated by Giulio Quaresima over 1 year ago

+1

Actions

Also available in: Atom PDF