We have the concepts of tasks in synergy. (we can create a task and associate our changes with that task).
Is there something similar in Rational clearcase?
as of now we just checkOut the files we need to edit , and check them in.
But If i want to search a set of related files for a CR, i cannot search it (this is where having a task helps)
With ClearCase UCM, you have the notion of activities.
An activity contains a change set, which lists all the modified versions (created by a checkout/checkin on an element - file or directory).
Related
I have clearcase Rational Clearcase Remote Client Version: 7.1.0.0 installed on my machine. I have created my view by creating workspace and using CVOB for repository. I am not able search from search menu like file, text within the file as its always returning 0 matches. Do i need to configure or install additionally to enable search? My organization is using clear case a strategic solution for documentation repository and as search is not working at whole rollout will go for toss. Appreciate if anyone has solution on this issue.
You do not search in a pvob: it should be for UCM metadata only (poject, activities, ...)
You should use a Vob (an UCM one probably, where an UCM component root has been defined)
In that vob, you will find elements (directories and files) to search for.
See more at "What is the Difference between VOB and PVOB?".
At our work, we are forced to use Clearcase UCM as our central repository (specifically for labelling/baselining, builds and code reviews), but our team wants to use Git as our real SCM system.
What we want to achieve is essentially a scraping service that takes the commits as they are pushed to our central Git repo, and push them on to a Clearcase VOB that is read-only as far as the development team is concerned, including important information such as the comment and the user name (exact date/time matching is not important, but getting the user correct is).
Our centralized Git server has been configured (using the excellent scm-manager) to accept Windows domain users and passwords, and our Clearcase servers use Windows domain accounts, but I am unsure how a scraper service would "impersonate" the correct user so this information is duplicated correctly in Clearcase.
I thought the chevent command might hold some promise, but that only gives access to the comment.
Is there any way to amend the details of a Clearcase event record once it is in the database, in particular the user-name? Or is there a better way to do this?
Again, we don't need a bi-directional bridge - all access to the Clearcase VOB as far as code commits is concerned would be through the scraper.
ClearCase is a file-by-file SCM, not a revision-based SCM.
(See "What are the basic ClearCase concepts every developer should know?" for a more detailed comparison between ClearCase and git)
That means, for each git commit, you need to:
clearfsimport into ClearCase any file included in the git commit.
Create a specific UCM activty for that import.
As a ClearCase admin, cleartool protect -chown on the activity: see "Why is the owner of the clearcase activity 'nobody'" (as well as a protect -chgrp, if the CLEARCASE_PRIMARY_GROUP environment variable wasn't correctly set at the time of the import).
Note that cleartool protect affects the entire "element" (file or directory), not just one version, so you cannot record the user id that way: the next import would overwrite that id with the id of the new committer whom content is imported.
Plus, you cannot changed the initial creator (see "Changing the name of the original creator of an element")
That means you should record that information (author and creator git id) in attribute:
see cleartool mkattr.
If I did want to accurately reflect the Git user as the "creator" of the new version of the file does that mean I would need a way to run clearfsimport as that user - impersonate them?
Yes: for each commit, you would need to clearfsimport "as" (runas in Windows, as mentioned in this thread) that use, in order for ClearCase to properly set the creator (if this is a new element) or the version author (if this is an update of an existing version).
The reason I didn't mention that possibility in the first place is that I don't have access to the credentials of another user, for me to switch to for each clearfsimport.
Other import tools (CVS, PCVS, RCS, SCCS, SSafe) simply:
ignore that creator/author information entirely.
add attributes of their own for tool-specific information (like the promotion group 'PVCS_GROUP', or RCS_REVISION.
Each time, you will find the limitation similar to:
clearexport_sccs ignores information in SCCS files that is not related to version-tree structure; this includes flags, ID keywords, user lists, and Modification Request numbers
most of our other systems that need the Clearcase history use the creator to reflect who made that change
That means your other systems can rely on the user ID version, except if it is the one used for the import (in which case they would consult the special attribute recording that data from the import)
I'm thinking of Mask as in a circuit Mask (I think)- let me explain with a handy chart
The common source would be physically in c:\source
Instance A would be physically in c:\instanceA but initially have nothing but symlinks to everything in c:\source
Instance B would be physically in c:\instanceB but initially have nothing but symlinks to everything in c:\source
As you made changes to Instance A and Instance B, you would have create a mask that would hide files from CommonSource if they were deleted from the Instance folders and create a new physical file in the instance directory if an existing Common Source file was modified.
New files would live in the instance folders but never make it back to the Common Source.
This type of setup would be very useful for a project where I want to do many different types of small tweaks to multiple instances where distinct threads would work on distinct instances.
I know about symbolic links but they fall short in the case of modifying a file.
Is there anything that can accomplish this? If not, should I try to make this and patent it? Seems like a good idea to me.
I would be on Windows Server 2008 or later.
Fearing I'm stating the obvious, but git is one tool that can be used to achieve this behavior.
Make your "Common Source" a git repository
Clone the repository twice to "InstanceA" and "InstanceB"
In each instance, check out a new, unique branch
As changes are made in "Common Source" you can merge those changes into "InstanceA" and "InstanceB" while maintaining the "MASK" (changes to the branch) you've created for each.
This has the added benefit of allowing changes from "Common Source" to be pulled as you wish instead of having changes to "Common Source" pushed out to each instance (something I imagine would be less desirable and more prone to error).
You're looking for a union mount. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any implementations for Windows, but there are several available for Linux, notably UnionFS.
In general they are used for making a read-only filesystem look like it's read-write: typically on live-CDs.
Since Windows 7 you can use libraries, which will allow you to include files from more than one physical location.
Windows 7 also include VirtualStore type of folder (for example, when creating or modifying a file in Program Files folder, it will actually be created in a user specific folder:
C:\Users\user\AppData\Local\VirtualStore. However - I don't know how you can create this type of folders yourself, and also, as far as I know, you can add and modify files, but not delete files in that way.
You'll want a versioning control system that supports per file checkout and permissions. Then you just need to set up a simple API converter that takes file-system commands and converts them to versioning control commands.
Delete -> disable permission to access file.
Directory commands should look for local copies and things you have permission to access.
Open -> grab local copy, on fail check-out file from repository.
Save -> disable permission, save local copy. //Avoid duplicates being seen.
Close without saving -> if permission to access from repository, delete local copy.
((By the way, this storage optimization seems somewhat spurious for versioning. Disk space is relatively cheap.
If your interest isn't in versioning, I'd suggest looking into separating out the information you would potentially want as volatile and creating configuration files for each branch. This, of course, requires a predictable pattern to the changes.))
IBM Rational ClearCase is version control system which does file-mask-like behaviour. It is known as MVFS: MultiVersion File System and can be mount to a workstation like a ordinary network drive.
ClearCase server (aka. VOB) you can store several versions of the same file, each on different code branch. The sets of files visible by user are called views. Each view has a configuration (aka. configuration specification), which defines what files and versions are visible for current user. Typical file looks like this:
# From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Rational_ClearCase#Configuration_specifications
# Show all elements that are checked out to this view, regardless any other rules.
element * CHECKEDOUT
# For all files named 'somefile', regardless of location, always show the latest version
# on the main branch.
element .../somefile /main/LATEST
# Use a specific version of a specific file. Note: This rule must appear before
# the next rule to have any effect!
element /vobs/project1/module1/a_header.h /main/proj_dev_branch/my_dev_branch1/14
# For other files in the 'project1/module1' directory, show versions
# labeled 'PROJ1_MOD2_LABEL_1'. Furthermore, don't allow any checkouts in this path.
element /vobs/project1/module1/... PROJ1_MOD2_LABEL_1 -nocheckout
# Show the 'ANOTHER_LABEL' version of all elements under the 'project1/module2' path.
# If an element is checked out, then branch that element from the currently
# visible version, and add it to the 'module2_dev_branch' branch.
element /vobs/project1/module2/... ANOTHER_LABEL -mkbranch module2_dev_branch
In ClearCase GUI during a delivery i can right click and "display element log"; is there a way to export this element log? I can run via command line but want to export from GUI if possible; maybe even by activity a week or two later.
For a given element during a merge, you can "export" the "display element log" dialog box in that you can copy-paste its content.
That is hardly a scalable solution however.
You could preview a merge (deliver or rebase) with a cleartool findmerge -print, however that would be limited to directory merges, not file merges.
The only information you got after a deliver is the UCM deliver_xxxx activity created automatically during that process and which allows you to get the exact list of files and directories merged during said deliver.
See for instances of that deliver activity "Describe baseline and expand deliver and rebase activities"
This won't contain the information of each "display element log" though...
I found "Suspend Change-set" in RTC to be very useful, and since we're working with ClearCase as well (dozens of users) I'm wondering if that feature is also available in ClearCase as well.
If not - could it be generated by script/trigger/hook ?
We use UCM, and I'd like to explain my question:
if I have to deliver and I want to skip delivering one activity, I can decide not to deliver it (if no dependencies...) , so my question is regarding working on my current stream: Is that possible to "suspend" an activity from my current stream ?
Thanks in advance
Simply put, not easily.
RTC is basically ClearCase rewritten from scratch, and the "suspend" mode (also called stashed or shelve) takes advantage of the notion of applying a changeset (to any state of a repository)
The UCM changeset are a list of versions of files. Each version is tied to its predecessor, and you cannot easily remove it (unless you do some negative or subtractive merges), and then re-apply them later.
That being said, Reuven just contacted me this morning, because he had files in checked out in a snapshot view on a Stream which he wants to rebase (similar issue to your deliver problem).
A possible way to do that is to create another view (dynamic one), which you can use for your rebase, and then go back to your snapshot view and update it: it will detect the updated config spec (following the rebase) and will not erase any of your currently checked out files.
On the checkin, those files will be merged with the updated version.