Create A Work Flow For Ticket Type

Hi,

I currently have a statemachine workflow that is being used to display various options available for the state of the ticket.  What I have been asked to do is set it up so that ticket type would determine the type of workflow to use.  In the case of a Bug, to follow one workflow, whereas; in the case of an enhancement request to follow a seperate workflow.  Can someone help me out with this?

Here is my current bug workflow

statemachine State Lifecycle for field State {

  initial state Submitted {
    
  }
   
  state Submitted {
    on In Triage[always] do {<define statements>} transit to In Triage
  }
   
  state In Triage {

I don't want to display PM Review/Can't Reproduce in the case of an enhancement

I do want to display LOE Requested instead
    on PM Review[always] do {<define statements>} transit to PM Review
     
    on Rejected[always] do {<define statements>} transit to Rejected
     
    on Can't Reproduce[always] do {<define statements>} transit to Can't Reproduce
  }
   
  state In Development {
    on On Hold[always] do {<define statements>} transit to On Hold
     
    on Rejected[always] do {<define statements>} transit to Rejected
     
    on Ready For QA[always] do {<define statements>} transit to Ready For QA
     
    on Obsolete[always] do {<define statements>} transit to Obsolete
  }
   
  state On Hold {
    on In Development[always] do {<define statements>} transit to In Development
     
    on Obsolete[always] do {<define statements>} transit to Obsolete
  }
   
  state Can't Reproduce {
    on Reopened[always] do {<define statements>} transit to Reopened
     
    on Additional Information Needed[always] do {<define statements>} transit to Additional Information Needed
  }
   
  state Rejected {
    on Reopened[always] do {<define statements>} transit to Reopened
  }
   
  state Ready For QA {
    on QA Assigned[always] do {<define statements>} transit to QA Assigned
  }
   
  state Obsolete {
    
  }
   
  state Reopened {
    on In Development[always] do {<define statements>} transit to In Development
     
    on Obsolete[always] do {<define statements>} transit to Obsolete
  }
   
  state QA Assigned {
    on QA Testing[always] do {<define statements>} transit to QA Testing
  }
   
  state QA Testing {
    on Ready For Build[always] do {<define statements>} transit to Ready For Build
     
    on In Development[always] do {<define statements>} transit to In Development
  }
   
  state Ready For Build {
    
  }
   
  state Additional Information Needed {
    on In Triage[always] do {<define statements>} transit to In Triage
     
    on In Development[always] do {<define statements>} transit to In Development
     
    on QA Testing[always] do {<define statements>} transit to QA Testing
  }
   
  state PM Review {
    on Request Level Of Effort[always] do {<define statements>} transit to LOE Requested
  }
   
  state LOE Requested {
    on Additional Info Needed[always] do {<define statements>} transit to Additional Information Needed
     
    on Rejected[always] do {<define statements>} transit to Rejected
     
    on Obsolete[always] do {<define statements>} transit to Obsolete
     
    on Level Of Effort Returned[always] do {<define statements>} transit to LOE Returned
  }
   
  state LOE Returned {
    on Prioritize[always] do {<define statements>} transit to Prioritization
     
    on Obsolete[always] do {<define statements>} transit to Obsolete
  }
   
  state Prioritization {
    on Obsolete[always] do {<define statements>} transit to Obsolete
     
    on On Hold[always] do {<define statements>} transit to On Hold
     
    on In Development[always] do {<define statements>} transit to In Development
  }

}

Thanks,

Rick M.

1 comment
Comment actions Permalink

Hello Rick,

Unfortunatelly we don't have ability to use separate WorkFlows for different isuue types.

You can vote for this feature http://youtrack.jetbrains.net/issue/JT-8639

--

Sergey Andreev

QA Engineer

JetBrains, Inc

http://www.jetbrains.com

"Develop with pleasure!"

0

Please sign in to leave a comment.