Searchable defects

[LaurenBrodt]

I am proposing a way to search identified and resolved defects.  Currently the only way is to search through release notes, and even that does not include anything identified later.  As a result, it is not easy to know if you are experiencing an issue that has already been identified as a defect.  I am proposing defects be including with knowledge base searches, with the following information:

Defect number

Component

Description

Status

Affected versions

Date identified

Date resolved

Resolution

[LaurenBrodt]

Spin off idea -  

[DougCampbellBTS]

Love this! Bump up the priority of this one! 

One suggestion: Add "Known Workarounds" as a field/topic as well.

[ScottHagemeyer]

LAUREN BRODT‌, Douglas Campbell, et al.:

Does the launch of the new Engineering Requests portal solve this problem?

https://community.rsa.com/community/products/archer-grc/blog/2019/10/03/launching-engineering-requests-management-portal 

[LaurenBrodt]

Not completely.  I'd like to be able to search all identified issues that should be "public", especially those identified after the release notes have been published.  For example, I submitted a support case today for drop downs cutting off when inline edit is enabled.  I was told it was already an identified defect with a JIRA number.  If I could search the issue in the community and have that JIRA number come back as being already identified and in the queue, it would save me a support case, as well as save the support techs time.

[DougCampbellBTS]

Scott Hagemeyer‌,

Yes, I think this is an excellent step in the right direction. It would allow us to see the progress on support tickets we are associated with.

As you know, the issues that are published in Release Notes do not contain all known or resolved issues.

The ultimate pie in the sky solution would be to open up access to all those Jira's for us to be able to search regardless of whether you were associated with it or not. Think about how much time it takes for first or second level support to research and identify if there's an existing/known issue and the time involved by clients. It would be helpful for us to do that and then tag ourselves to those tickets. 

Again, very happy with the progress. Thanks!

[LaurenBrodt]

Agreed, it's a great step forward.

[KatieBacon]

I am in agreement with Lauren.  This additional information that she is looking for would help me make the decision if I should upgrade to the next version or not based on what evaluating what has been found so far to see if they are deal breakers for me.  For example, at the moment, if the only defects that initially are reported with 6.7 are AWS, I would probably make the decision to take it anyway as that is not the top of my priority list.  But if they were showstopper type items for me, it would save me a tremendous amount of time avoiding doing the install, testing to find it myself, and then doing a restore when I could just continue working on my enhancements list during that time instead until those bugs are fixed.  Thanks!

In the meantime, does anyone know what Rambo2 means as the Fixed Version for one of my issues?

[ScottHagemeyer]

Katie Bacon,

That was our internal code name for the 6.7 release before it was officially numbered. Can you let me know which document and ARCHER-##### had this listed so I can get that corrected please?

CC: Elizabeth Wenzel‌

[KatieBacon]

Rambo2 was displaying in the Fixed Version column for ARCHER-64107 on my Engineering Requests tab under the RSA Case Management website.

[ScottHagemeyer]

Thanks, Katie. We're looking into why this went out with the code name instead of the actual version, which again is 6.7 available later this month.