I've read through https://answers.atlassian.com/questions/136279/greenhopper-rank-field-explanation and https://answers.atlassian.com/questions/43423/user-sorting-in-a-greenhopper-agile-view etc and I realize that GH only supports ranking by the Rank field, which I guess is OK, and that one can't sort by any other field in the Boards. Fine.
We actually use a "Market Value" field to calculate priority; this field is actually a 'Calculated Number Field' (provided by JIRA Misc Customer fields which summarizes other fields such as Customer Impact, Market Pervasiveness, Buying Criteria, etc. I can use this field within a standard JIRA search and sort on it as desired.
I'm fine not using that field directly as the GH ranking field, because in fact there may be other factors that come into play (like story size/cost) that affect priority. I would like, however, to *start* with that ordering, and adjust from there. I'm finding this virtually impossible; what I'd like to do is go into the Plan board and move issues up and down until it matches the Market Value priority, But I can't modify which fields show up in the Backlog, so I can't even see the Market Value field. I can't even add it to the Issue Detail view - for some reason it doesn't show up in the dropdown. The same is true for GH Classic views.
In the normal JIRA search, I can see the Market Value field and sort by it, but of course I can't re-rank things.
So my question is:
- How can I easily re-order my existing backlog so that the 'Rank' field follows the same order as a 'Calculated Number' field?
I'm afraid this isn't going to work really. All of the ranking functionality relies on the field for "rank" being of the type "ranking field", and a custom field of any other type simply will not work. If you need a calculation, then you'd have to change "market value" to be of the ranking field type and then work out how to set it automatically on creation, overriding the current calculation Greenhopper does for it.
For your current workaround/process - I think there's a request to be able to fully customise which fields you see in backlog, but I can't find it!
Ok there is actually a way of doing this.
Simply go to Board Configuration -> General and click on Edit Filter Query. At <tt>ORDER BY Rank ASC</tt>, replace <tt>Rank</tt> with your custom field name, i.e. the name of the custom rank field that you wish to use, and then save the filter. Now go back to your Agile Board, the issues should now be sorted a different way according to your custom rank field.
NOTE: Drawback is that you cannot drag and drop re-sort your issues any longer
Well, you rank through the other field you selected. To change the order of the backlog you have to update the field you changed to. Not quite what I want but perhaps someone else can live with those drawbacks.
My current solution is that my calculated field (using script runner) also update Business Value. I have then selected Business Value as "Estimate" so I can see that value in the small grey roundish circles in the back log. By using that value I can rank more easily. Unfortunately I ran into a sync problem so the Estimate value doesn't update properly. I need to reindex automatically using a listener, but I don't really know how.
But the ranking in Jira/Agile remains tied to the ranking fields.
Your work-around is a human "what needs to be at the top of the priority list" and it is a good way to handle some stuff. But it's not ranking, it's just sorting, and it doesn't do ranking in Agile - it will be totally ignored when using boards.
Not sure I follow you? In fact this does change the ranking in the Agile board concerned and the solution came from Atlassian support. But the indexing gets fixed because JIRA doesn't allow anything other than rank field for the indexing. Have you tested my suggested solution?
Or are you talking about other type of boards that still use the rank value?
I can't see how your scripted field is being used as the ranking field. It's not a ranking field, so you are not ranking by it, just sorting. Does it actually write back to the ranking field directly? What happens when someone re-ranks an issue on a scrum or Kanban board?
Haven't tested a Kanban board but I have tested it on a Scrum board and as I said, you are not allowed to re-rank since you no longer "sort" by the rank field. So that is the drawback I was trying to explain. It can be a good solution for some who really don't want to re-rank manually but rely on the calculated value solely.
That does make sense - I was worried that I'd completely misunderstood, but you've simply stopped ranking because it's not working for you. Your setup is useful for those who want to sort by fields other than rank, particularly the way you draw in the business value field.
I also need this feature. You should be able to create a board, sorted on what you specify, and have that be the default rank. Any ranking done to override that should be preserved.
To not be able to create a sprint until you have manually sorted every issue in a project by a field like Business Value is a major shortcoming.
In reality, this simply does not work.
A rank field used to be a unique number, and has moved to be a "lexorank" which is easier to work with than a number.
Other fields (i.e. not ranks) allow duplicate values, so they can't be used for ranking (if you have two issues with "colour = blue", they can't be ranked because you can't say which one is higher than the other).
This community is celebrating its one-year anniversary and Atlassian co-founder Mike Cannon-Brookes has all the feels.Read more
Can a new-to-agile team survive and thrive in a non-agile culture? If so, what advice would you give to those trying to be agile in a non-agile culture? What's the key(s) to success? Share your thoug...
Connect with like-minded Atlassian users at free events near you!Find a group
Connect with like-minded Atlassian users at free events near you!
Unfortunately there are no AUG chapters near you at the moment.Start an AUG
You're one step closer to meeting fellow Atlassian users at your local meet up. Learn more about AUGs