custom issue relation types
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.
Updated by Mauro Chojrin about 11 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.
Updated by Brandon Liles over 10 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.
Updated by Vito Marolda almost 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.
Updated by shawn freeman over 3 years ago
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:
- Allow the admin to define any number of for "Related To".
- Present the list of "Related To" aliases in the drop-down as if they were each unique.
- Leave the underlying code behavior as-is.