cannot add artifacts to root after loading via loadrule.
i have a component with the name com.org.abc.something
its contents It has three folders int he root - doc, src, lib. The requirement is that 1. the component is loaded in the sandbox in the directory structure ../com/org/abc/something 2. contents of lib is loaded directly under ../com/org/abc/something For this i wrote the following loadrule <parentLoadRule> <component name="com.org.abc.something" /> <parentFolder repositoryPath="/"/> <exclude> <filter name="lib"/> </exclude> <sandboxRelativePath pathPrefix="/com/org/abc/something"/> </parentLoadRule> <parentLoadRule> <component name="com.org.abc.something" /> <parentFolder repositoryPath="/lib"/> <sandboxRelativePath pathPrefix="/com/org/abc/something"/> </parentLoadRule> The loading works fine, but there is a problem. If any new folder/file is added in com/org/abc/something/ , RTC doesn't track it. Which means i am now unable to add any artifacts to the root of the component. Do you have any suggestions? |
3 answers
Ralph Schoon (63.1k●3●36●45)
| answered May 07 '14, 3:17 a.m.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER
Maxmelbin,
as far as I can tell the way you load, ../com/org/abc/something is a folder where you load the content. This folder is, as far as I can tell not under source control itself, which is why you can not version anything in there. As far as I can tell, If it where under SCM, you would have not been able to load that way, because the nested folders, also being under SCM would overlap. This is however the experience I have made with experimenting with this for customers. I have no solution at hand at this point in time, unfortunately. Comments Hi Ralph, consider a slight change in the presented loadrule:
Ralph Schoon
commented May 16 '14, 10:32 a.m.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER
As far as my experience goes, If you load something like
diogo cruz
commented May 16 '14, 10:42 a.m.
Consider:
Ralph Schoon
commented May 16 '14, 10:50 a.m.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER
I have investigated loading with load rules recently...... I did load as described above and the path prefix was not in SCM. All I can really say. Your situation might be different. In any case, you might want to create a work item explaining what you expect.
You are right. The example I provided before does not work. But this one works:
|
Geoffrey Clemm (30.1k●3●30●35)
| answered May 18 '14, 5:55 p.m.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER
A few key points:
- A new file/folder in a sandbox appears in the Unresolved folder of the Pending Changes view only if that new file/folder has been added to a folder in the sandbox that is under version control. - An itemLoadRule places the file/folder in the sandbox specified by that itemLoadRule under version control. - A parentLoadRule does *not* place the folder in the sandbox specified by that parentLoadRule under version control, but rather places the specified children of that folder in the sandbox under version control. - You cannot specify a load rule for a child of a folder in a sandbox that is under version control (the loading of that child is completely determined by the version controlled folder). So if you want new children of a specified folder in the sandbox to appear in the Unresolved folder of the Pending Changes view, you must either specify that folder in an itemLoadRule, or you need to specify the *parent folder* of that folder in a parentLoadRule, and then specify that folder in the matching rules for that parentLoadRule. It sounds like what you want is for a parentLoadRule to also cause a new file/folder in the specified folder in the sandbox to appear in the Pending Changes view. This is not an unreasonable enhancement request (perhaps the one that you filed? it would be good post the ID of that work item into this thread), but note that it would introduce a possibility of a conflict, where an "incoming change" could overwrite a file in the Unresolved folder. But the system could just detect this and create a warning saying "do you want to checkin your change before doing the accept, to avoid overwriting the unresolved change". |
Yep, you got my point. I will create an RFE soon.
The solution could be also to allow exclusion nodes to ItemLoadRule. But the solution field I leave it to you. Thanks. |
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.