I know that I can use the CLI command si viewrevision to get the content of a versioned file. Downside is that this file must not be dropped.
Does anyone know a way (other than addfromarchive) to get the content when knowing the archive?
I don't believe this is possible
si projectco is documented as "checks out members of a project into working files". If you drop the member from the project, it is no longer part of the project.
At first blush, si viewrevision doesn't explicitly state in the documentation that it requires a project, but if you try to run the command without a project (or a sandbox, which implies a project), you will be prompted for one. Failing to provide one at the prompt exits the command with the message 'A value for "--project" is required.' I tried doing this specifying a change package ID which the member was part of, and that still doesn't work.
Your si addfromarchive option is the only published way to do this.
Disclosure: I am a PTC employee.
Why not use add from archive?
You could also use a temporary server location (S:/Server/prj_tmp/project.pj)
as destination and the member will stay dropped in the original project.
(Ok, ok, someone could create a sandbox from S:/Server/prj_tmp/project.pj and generate new versions in the archive of the dropped member, ad/delete labels ...)
There might be another possibility if your project has a checkpoint where the file was not yet dropped.
Just create a build sandbox with the project revision of that checkpoint and then:
C:\BuildSandboxes\prjA\src> si viewrevision ..... :)
.
You might also use something like
C:\Sandboxes\prjA\src> si configuresubproject --subprojectRevision=1.2 --type=build project.pj
view your revision and then go back with
C:\Sandboxes\prjA\src> si configuresubproject --type=default project.pj
but this might affect user that are currently working on the project. (eg. they would not be able to check in while the subproject is configured as build)
Related
I have updated my check_mk from 1.6.x to 2.0.x
My custom omd-plugins got messed up and so I started to refactor them for the new 2.0 API with the help of this article.
However, when the time for testing came, I got this:
OMD[my_omd]:~$ cmk --detect-plugins=my_plugin -vI my_host.my_company.de
Error in plugin file /omd/sites/my_omd/local/share/check_mk/checks/my_plugin: "'__name__' not in globals"
I was using sym-links.
For source-control, I have a git-repo. I had put sym-links pointing from the old checks-directory back to the plugin-file in that repo. Starting through the above mentioned guide, I created a new sym-link from the new local/lib/check_mk/base/plugins/agent_based/. Adding the required .py suffix in the process. So now I have 2 sym-links pointing to one piece of code, which I had modified in-place.
Turns out: If you do not delete the plugin from the old location, you will always test the old plugin. With sym-links, you will test the new code in the old environment, giving you that error.
Notice the path in the error-message!
As for the __name__ error itself: It seems to come from doing relative imports import .something. Notice the leading dot. It means "in the same directory as this file". Somehow the old environment was not able to cope with that.
I am working on transferring one application from rgen to Origen.
I added environment/j750.rb in my application.
added the below code into j750.rb
# environment/j750.rb
$tester = OrigenTesters::J750.new
in Target folder, I also added $test as below:
$tester = OrigenTesters::J750.new
however, when I tried to generate pattern, it still failed and showed'uninitialized constant OrigenTesters'.
When and how to initialize it?
Thanks a lot in advance!
Normally this is something that Origen users don't particularly need to worry about, if you add:
gem 'origen_testers'
to your application's Gemfile, then it will be required automatically and a reference like OrigenTesters in your environment file or anywhere else will just work.
However, I note that you mention upgrading from an rgen app, which means that your application must be very old and in fact may not even have a Gemfile.
If you contact me internally I can send you the link to our intranet page which has a guide on how to update these really old apps.
Is there a way to update the member revision of a big list of files via command line?
I can't use :working or :head but have to specify a different revision for each file.
As far as I know --selectionFile only takes paths as input, but not the revision numbers.
edit: I wanted to set member a very big list of files and I wanted to avoid writing the command si updaterevision ... for every file, as it takes ages to complete for that many files. Instead I wanted to know if there is a more advanced method to specify a list of files and their revisions to be able to run the updaterevision only once (like it is with :working) for the whole list of files.
But as it is said in the comment there is no such possibility.
edit2: I use MKS for a couple of years now and as I now know, there is no such possibility (at least up to MKS 11.6) to update many files to different revisions with one single command line call. But using one call per member, as was proposed, made the whole operation take up to several hours as I had many thousands of members in the sandbox and MKS needs some time to complete each sicommand.
Some time already passed since you asked for this question, here is my comment in case it could still be useful for you in the future.
First, It is not completely clear what you want to achieve. Please be more descriptive and if possible provide example.
What I understand as of now is you need to set bunch of files listed as member revision thru the command line. This is fairly simple, the most complicated is actually to have the list of files to be updated to member and the revision that you want to set as member.
I recommend you to create a batch file with the commands to make each file member. You can use Regex to do it very quick and without much trouble.
Here is an example for updating one file member revision:
si updaterevision --hostname=servername --port=portnumber --user=username --changepackageid=5873763:2 --revision=:working myfile_a1.c
where
servername = the name of the server where your sandbox is located
portnumber = the port that provides access to the server for your sandbox
username = your login user id
changepackageid = here you change the number to use your defined TASK:ChangePackage for this changes
revision = if you have a working revision that you want now to become member, just use "working" as revision, otherwise you can define specific revision number, e.g. revision=1.2
At the end you define the name of the file you want to update.
Go to you sandbox root folder, open CMD window, and run the batch file. It will execute each line applying your changes.
If you have a list of files with the revision you want as member, you can use REGEX to convert it into a batch file.
Example list of files in text file:
file1.c 1.10
file3.c 1.19
sec_file1.c 1.1.2.1
support.h 1.7
Use notepad++ or other text editor with regex support and run this search:
Once you know which regex apply, you can now use it in the notepad++ to do a simple search and replace:
Search = ([\w].[\D])\s+([\d.]+).*
Replace = si updaterevision --hostname=servername --port=portnum --user=userid --changepackageid=6123933:4 --revision=\2 \1
\1 => FileName
\2 => File revision
See image below as example:
Finally just save doc as batch file and run it.
Just speculating that if you have a large list of members along with the member revision you want to update to, then you also have an sandbox that served you to generate this list.
If so my approach would be
c:\MySandbox> si updaterevision --recurse --revision=:working
If your member/revision list come from a development path you could first have a sandbox targeting that devpath, resync, (close thesandbox if opened in gui), retarget the sandbox to the destination devpath (or mainline) you want and then issue the command above.
For an single member approach I would use 'si rlog' to generate a list of si-commands directly
si rlog -R --noheaderformat --notrailerformat --revision=:working --format="si updaterevision {membername} --revision={revision}\r\n" > updaterevs.bat.txt
Review updaterevs.bat.txt rename it to updaterevs.bat and ecxecute it.
(Be careful if using it on other sandboxes)
Other interesting readings here might be the "snapshot sandbox" feature,
checkpointing in general and variants rsp. devpaths.
Using only these features might be politically more correct in the philosophy of Integrity.
I am using following command to sync B vob files from A vob
clearfsimport -master -follow -nsetevent -comment $2 /vobs/A/xxx/*.h /vobs/B/xxx/
It works fine. But it will check in all the changes automatically. Is there a way to do the same task but leave the update files in a check out status?
I want to update the file for B from A. Build my programme, and then re-cover the branch. So if the updated files is an check out status, I can do unco later. Well with my command before, everything is checked in. I cann't re-cover my branch then.
Thanks.
As VonC said, it's impossible to prevent "clearfsimport" to do the check in. And he suggested to use a label to recover back.
For me, the branch where I did "clearfsimport" is branched from a label.Let's call it LABEL_01. So I guess I can use that label for recovery. Is there an easy way (one command) to recover the files under /vobs/B/xxx/ to label LABEL_01 ? I want to do it in my bash script, so the less/easy the command is, the better.
Thanks.
After having a look at the man page for clearfsimport, no, it isn't possible to prevent the checkins.
I would set a label before the clearfsimport, and modify the config spec for the new version to be created in a branch (similar to this config spec).
That way, "re-cover" the initial branch would be easy: none of the new version would have been created in it.
(I'm using InstallShield2012 V.18)
In setup.rul I defined a function per prototype declaration, included the file with the function definition and compiled it successfully (InstallShield compile).
Now I'd like to test this function (only).
I don't want to run the whole installation, not even test (Ctrl-T) because I want to avoid a complete re-build which takes too long time to do it often.
Is there a way to test only the custom function in InstallShield or per command line?
Not really although I can give you some tips.
Create a dummy feature with a release flag of DEVONLY.
Create a dummy component for that feature.
Create a ProductConfiguration that builds a single MSI with no EXE and a release flag of DEVONLY.
Building this production configuration will be very fast. A couple seconds on my laptop with an SSD. You can selectivly include other features through the use of release flags if you need certain components in order to setup the test environment for your CA.
Another strategy is to develop your CA in a test harness project and then transplant the code into your real installer when you know it all works.
Christopher, thanks for this fast reply. I have to put my answer here because commenting was restricted, because too long.
I also thought about using such a workaround but first wanted to avoid it if possible.
But ok, now I tried these steps, 1 and 2 no problem, but 3: InstallShield didn't allow me to configure a Product Configuration without Setup.exe in my .ism file (although we have IS2012 Pro).
Then I tried to do it in a Basic MSI Project (is that what you meant?), which really builds in very short time. And now I can see my scripting during Test Release, yeah :-)
To "transplant" my script now to the main ism I'm missing an export function for .rul files as it exists for custom actions, but there is only a import. So I will have to copy-paste while switching between ism files, but never mind.