Skip to Main Content
Cloud Platform


This is an IBM Automation portal for Cloud Platform products. To view all of your ideas submitted to IBM, create and manage groups of Ideas, or create an idea explicitly set to be either visible by all (public) or visible only to you and IBM (private), use the IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com).


Shape the future of IBM!

We invite you to shape the future of IBM, including product roadmaps, by submitting ideas that matter to you the most. Here's how it works:

Search existing ideas

Start by searching and reviewing ideas and requests to enhance a product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted, and add a comment, vote, or subscribe to updates on them if they matter to you. If you can't find what you are looking for,

Post your ideas
  1. Post an idea.

  2. Get feedback from the IBM team and other customers to refine your idea.

  3. Follow the idea through the IBM Ideas process.


Specific links you will want to bookmark for future use

Welcome to the IBM Ideas Portal (https://www.ibm.com/ideas) - Use this site to find out additional information and details about the IBM Ideas process and statuses.

IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com) - Use this site to view all of your ideas, create new ideas for any IBM product, or search for ideas across all of IBM.

ideasibm@us.ibm.com - Use this email to suggest enhancements to the Ideas process or request help from IBM for submitting your Ideas.


Status Future consideration
Categories ClearQuest
Created by Guest
Created on Aug 23, 2018

Missing Operators at OSLC-Queries using OSLC 2.0

In our understanding of OSLC 2.0 a query is similar to build like SQL.
For writing OSLC-queries it is neccessary to proof values for empty and also for a value.
It is also neccessary to negate those queries.
Actually there are a lot of restrictions in OSLC 2.0,
so that it is not possible to write such queries.

1. Querying for an empty field
Actually it is only possible to ask for an empty field with only on syntax:
cq:Type IN [""] is working.
But other variants of spellings are not working, like:
cq:Type IS NULL (returns a syntax-error
cq:Type = "" (returns a syntax-error)
cq:Type="" (returns wrong result; always 0)


2. Querying for a not empty field (field has any value)
Actually it is not possible to make a query in OSLC 2.0 and ask for a field with any values.
There is no placeholder defined like:
cq:Type=* (returns a syntax-error)
cq:Type = * (returns a syntax-error)
cq:Type IN * (returns a syntax-error)
cq:Type IN [*] (returns a syntax-error)
cq:Type IS NOT NULL (returns a syntax-error)
cq:Type != "" (returns a syntax-error)
cq:Type!="" (returns wrong result)
One command will also return wrong values:
cq:Type!=""
In this case the exclamation mark will be ignored.
The result is all records with an empty Type.

3. Querying for a field, which has not a defined value
Actually it is possible to query for a special value of a field.
But it is not possible to query for a field, in which one value is not defined:
cq:Type != "Software" (returns a syntax-error)
cq:Type!="Software" (returns wrong result)
cq:Type NOT IN ["Software"] (returns a syntax-error)

We would like to have those operators as well in OSLC-queries of the version 2.0.
We need the following operators to work with OSLC:
- possibilities to query for empty-values
- possibilities to query for not empty values
- possibilities to query for not a defined value

Having spaces in front and after the operators should also work well.

Idea priority Medium
RFE ID 123961
RFE URL
RFE Product Rational ClearQuest
  • Guest
    Aug 28, 2018

    A preliminary evaluation of this request indicates that it is consistent with our business strategy. Further evaluation of this RFE is underway.