Hi everyone,
I’m trying to create a Jira Structure (using the Structure-DC plugin) for a project that clearly visualizes issue dependencies. My goal is to have:
Issue
├── Blocks
│ └── (linked issues that this issue blocks)
└── Is blocked by
└── (linked issues that block this issue)
…so that for each issue, its related issues are grouped under two boxes depending on the link direction.
I’ve tried several approaches:
Here is the most optimized formulas i found for the grouping of solution 1, but with performances issues :
WITH parent = PARENT{this}:
WITH link = issueLinks
.FILTER($.type = "blocks" AND ($.source = parent OR $.destination = parent))
.FIRST():
IF(
link.destination = parent,
"Blocks",
link.source = parent,
"Is blocked by",
"Error"
)I want both: performance for larger projects and a hierarchy that clearly shows the link direction.
Has anyone successfully built a Structure-DC hierarchy like this, or do you have tips for efficiently displaying bidirectional blocking links while keeping performance acceptable?
Thanks in advance!
Hi @leonard armagnat !
An alternative would be to use Board Studio app. It offers outward/inward visibility toggles for each link type fetched on your instance.
you can then display only work items « which are blocked by », if you also use the « hide non-linked cards » toggle. Finally, focus mode allows you to select one or several work item and/or links, and focus on them only.
Here are some snapshots simulating your case:
And in addition to link « blocked-by » visual filtering, you can highlight blocked-by work items which are child of a specific or several parents, using the « show parent context » in the semantic zoom bar. Here’s what it looks like:
Disclaimer: I’m the author of this app
Hope this helps, any comment appreciated!
Cheers, F.
Hello @leonard armagnat
The bidirectional extenders can be tricky. The more issues you have in the structure, the more hierarchy levels there are, the more resources such extenders can use. There is no specific restriction - you absolutely can use extenders configured to add both possible link directions - but the configuration should be precise. More specifically, the Extend on levels setting should be set to a manual range of levels (this is an important practice in any extender), and bidirectional extenders should cover as few levels as possible, ideally just one.
If optimizing the structure and its extenders doesn't improve the performance, please reach out to us directly at our support portal, and we'll have a look.
Best regards,
Stepan
Tempo (the Structure app vendor)
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
I have not used Structure for a long-time, but if there is nothing documented it's best to reach out to Tempo support (developer Structure).
And ask the apps support team, if this is possible.
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Thanks for your reply! I’ll also reach out to Tempo support as you suggested.
Actually, this topic is fairly well documented by Tempo — there are even generators like "link to / group by link" that seem designed for this, but i didn't find the good way to use it.
Perhaps I wasn’t completely clear in my original message: I’m also looking for discussions around "best practices", tips, and tricks used by the community for efficiently visualizing and managing bidirectional blocking links in Structure. Any experiences or advice would be much appreciated!
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.