Quality Center / ALM Practitioners Forum

Manual Run Executed Steps Columns Order

Respected Contributor.

Manual Run Executed Steps Columns Order


This is mostly just an annoyance and I'm trying to find the best way to solve this.


In the screen shown below, which I refer to (perhaps incorrectly) as the Manual Runner: Step Details Page.  I would like to alter the display order of the columns.  I can see they are displayed in alphabetical order from all the steps in the Design Steps Entity.  


Our problem is that we have around 50 or so columns and more to come I'm sure.   You can drag them around but it doesn't save the order, in addition I don't want to have to have the user drag them around depending on what they are testing.   I've been trying to alter it in the workflow, I know it says it's in the "ManualRun" module, I can get the values from the fields, so I know I have the correct fields.  But no luck on anything.


So, my questions.


  1. Is there a better way than the workflow to alter these columns?
  2. If workflow, the ideal place in the workflow, I've tried on "EnterModule" but I don't think that might be right.


Step_Fields.Field("ST_STEP_NAME").ViewOrder=01 'Test Step Name field
  TestTestSet_Fields.Field("TC_STATUS").ViewOrder=02   'Test Set Status field
  TestTestSet_Fields.Field("TC_EXEC_DATE").ViewOrder=03 'Test Execution Date field
  Step_Fields.Field("ST_USER_10").ViewOrder=04  'EntityID field

 Any guidence is appreciated, thanks!


Respected Contributor.

Re: Manual Run Executed Steps Columns Order

So, some more information which I think is partly the cause of this issue.  We have multiple projects, around 85 actually grouped together into ONE "Master Project" if you will. 


So instead of each project that has it's own unique data needs being split off into it's own QC project I have them all in one.  This is due to the DBAs not wanting to have to support multiple QC projects.


I can see where having a few projects that overlap or are connected in one project, but I would say in most instances they would have their own project.   Given what I've mentioned, would you say that splitting up the projects that have unique field needs help alleviate some of this?