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 Jazz.net 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.

Greetings,
Simon

One answer



permanent link
Geoffrey Clemm (30.1k33035) | answered Jun 01 '13, 1:08 p.m.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER
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.

Comments
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.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER

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.


Dashboards and work items are no longer publicly available, so some links may be invalid. We now provide similar information through other means. Learn more here.