It's all about the answers!

Ask a question

RTC-CC Synchronizer: Question concerning subComponent synchronization

Simon Eickel (1.1k75457) | asked Jun 01 '13, 8:41 a.m.
edited Jun 01 '13, 9:00 a.m.
Hi there,

it's me again with a little question.
As I'm using the synchronizer more and more I have some more questions related to it.
The first is related within this entry: more-than-one-component-to-one-folder

the second is this:
Is it possible to sync sub-sub folder from RTC to CC without getting the mid folders syncronized, too?
Example is this component structure:

Is it possible to just synchronize the dirs "dir1" and "dir2" from the RTC side to the CC side without getting the dir "CompI" created?
When trying to synchronize a sub-sub-folder to CC I noticed that he creates the folder structure to the component root in CC the way that I still have the tree to the folder I marked here:

What I need is that I mark a folder as subVOB component with the CC attribute. Lets say the folder is called "BasisDiverse". In CC this folder contains a folder called "ClearQuest".
When I now mark the ClearQuest folder within the RTC component (picture above) he creates in CC a folder called "Access_Room_Overview" and within this folder he creates the folder ClearQuest.
But what I need is that he directly synchronizes the "ClearQuest" folder inside the subVOB component "BasisDiverse".

I'm not sure if the explanation is understandable, but I hope so.


One answer

permanent link
Geoffrey Clemm (30.0k23035) | answered Jun 01 '13, 1:08 p.m.
No, this is not supported.
One reason is what is the synchronizer supposed to do if CompI and CompII both contain a folder named "dir5"?
It could throw a "conflict", but then the likelihood of the user getting confused (and/or annoyed) is high.   So we try to minimize the possiblity of conflicts.

Simon Eickel commented Jun 02 '13, 12:07 p.m.

Hi Geoff,
yes, that's wat I feared and thought ...
Any idea how to get a good workaround, except Symlinks, for this?

Isn't it a thing IBM could use as "advanced features" in future? :)

Simon Eickel commented Jun 02 '13, 12:10 p.m.

or other option:
Is it possible to explain the synchronizer to use "load rules"?
In this way I could give him a load rule which he should synchronize ;) Would be a nice scenario, too.

Geoffrey Clemm commented Jun 02 '13, 2:06 p.m.

A "load rule" approach is certainly a possible enhancement.  I've created the work item Allow specifying the component-root-relative pathname of a synchronization root (267544) so we can discuss the details of what this would look like (and prioritize when/whether it would be implemented).

Your answer

Register or to post your answer.