[Trac] Ticket #1005: Implemented work hour reporting for tick ets

[Kis Gergely]

Hi, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: trac-bounces at lists.edgewall.com 
> [mailto:trac-bounces at lists.edgewall.com] On Behalf Of Felix Collins
> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 9:57 PM
> To: trac at lists.edgewall.com
> Subject: Re: [Trac] Ticket #1005: Implemented work hour 
> reporting for tickets
> 
> Kis Gergely wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I created a patch for the 0.8-stable branch which implements work
> > hour reporting for the tickets. For details look at:
> > http://projects.edgewall.com/trac/ticket/1005
> > 
> > What do you think?
> 
> Below are my comments (somewhat modified) from
> http://projects.edgewall.com/trac/ticket/710
> 
> I've done this very successfully using the custom fields. I use an 
> initial estimate field, a current estimate (changed to reflect the 
> updated idea of how long the ticket will take) and a cumulative time 
> spent. I've even written a sync utility to allow us to 
> synchronise with 
> an xml gantt chart program for reporting.
How do you specify a cumulative custom field? This was the only thing
missing for me.
First, I wanted to implement it with custom fields too.

> 
> I don't think this needs a plugin module or anything like 
> that as that 
> will only restrict the flexibility needed to support multiple 
> different 
> development processes.  i.e. your patch does not have two estimate 
> fields for  "initial" and "current" estimate.
If you need the "initial" estimate, you can get it from the ticket_change
table.
But of course I see your point about flexibility. 

> 
> The only change I'd like to see to trac to support this sort 
> of thing is 
> some additions to the types of custom fields to support 
> Numerics - read 
> only, cumulative, read/write etc. And enforcing of numeric 
> only input. 
> I looked into doing this myself but I wasn't quite confident of 
> understanding trac enough to do it.
So in your current version you need to "cumulate" the actual work yourself. 
This was the thing I wanted to avoid.

@Christopher: What do you think about a patch that adds support for
cumulative / numeric
custom fields? Would you apply such patch? Maybe for trac 0.9?


Best Regards,
Gergely
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.edgewall.com/archive/trac/attachments/20050301/e23a8c75/attachment.html