If your machine is virtualized, just clone the VM (that is what we do for all of our test upgrades). NOTE - make sure to stand it up on an isolated network segment so that it doesn't try to do any inbound file processing or other communication that it should not (especially if you clone LIVE).
Thanks again for sharing the start of your journey with the Community. I am curious if you are planning to provide another Update Article? I would love to hear about how your journey has progressed over the past year and what you have learned along the way which could help others!
Exactly! We are actively using it internally within InterSystems - both in internal application development, and in HealthShare product development. As discussed in the video we have found incredible value in this tool for decreasing technical debt (and making sure new changes don't add to it). We thought customers might find the value in it as well.
You are most welcome. In terms of why TestCoverage was released on OpenExchange, it is something we have been exploring internally last year and wanted to share with the Community in time for Global Summit 2018. In terms of whether or not it will actually make it into product, I can't speak to that but perhaps the author @Timothy Leavitt can comment on that (I believe there were at least exploratory discussions with Product Management on this topic).
The first half of that should be helpful. Code coverage may be helpful too if they are able to move into a CI type BUILD infrastructure (I don't know how well Test Coverage would work in a more dynamic Dev environment as longitudinal history might be harder to maintain ... haven't really thought about that too much before...)
We're using UnitTesting for application validation for internal application development within InterSystems. If you have any specific questions, feel free to create new Questions in the D.C. and tag me, or if you would prefer a general discussion you can ask your Account Manager or Sales Engineer to set up a discussion with me.
There have also been several Global Summit presentations which have touched on the topic - not sure if you've seen these?
Sorry - I forgot that you first need to specify the source control class in the Management Portal. Put "Source Control" in the Search box on the SMP homepage, and then go to that page (e.g. http://localhost:57772/csp/sys/mgr/%25CSP.UI.Portal.SourceControl.zen). Select the Namespace in the left column and then "%Studio.SourceControl.ISC". Save the changes and try the BaselineExport() again. When you are done with the export, change the Source Control back to "None"
As a general tip, if you do enable and enforce source control, then you wouldn't need to be querying your class definitions to find variations between environments - you could see all of that (and so much more!) in your source control system ;)
I understand ... so you want to only export specific things which it has found to have differences in the code. That makes sense since you are trying to use it at the end of a piece of code already in place. I am afraid I don't know how to do that, but if you contact Support they may be able to suggest a trick or two.
Is there a reason that the use of a Virtual Namespace is a requirement? If not, you can use ##class(%Studio.SourceControl.ISC).BaselineExport() to export the entire contents of the Namespace to disk for file-based diffing (this is how I normally do it)
I can only comment on the original functionality in %Studio.SourceControl.ISC - if you're extending it you will need to do some debugging to see exactly why you are seeing the behavior that you are.
In the original %Studio.SourceControl.ISC class, when working in Connected mode (ie, Caché can issue p4 commands in real time to the Perforce server), the p4 command should take care of changing the file back to ReadOnly, which is what triggers GetStatus() to see it is uneditable and therefore not checked out. It may be that your GetStatus() isn't correctly interpretting the Reaonly state of the file, or if you are on UNIX, it may be that Caché doesn't see it properly as Readonly (this can happen if you are running your instance as Root). Note - I think there may be a bug where after checking the %Studio.SourceControl.Change table isn't updated appropriately, but the primary indicator of checked out/ checked in should be that Readonly bit on the file.
Hopefully this is enough to get you moving on this, and if not then I suggest you call Support to have them take a look with you and debug. If there are any other questions I can answer in this forum I am happy to try.
If your machine is virtualized, just clone the VM (that is what we do for all of our test upgrades). NOTE - make sure to stand it up on an isolated network segment so that it doesn't try to do any inbound file processing or other communication that it should not (especially if you clone LIVE).
@Peter Cooper
Thanks again for sharing the start of your journey with the Community. I am curious if you are planning to provide another Update Article? I would love to hear about how your journey has progressed over the past year and what you have learned along the way which could help others!
Cheers,
Ben
Exactly! We are actively using it internally within InterSystems - both in internal application development, and in HealthShare product development. As discussed in the video we have found incredible value in this tool for decreasing technical debt (and making sure new changes don't add to it). We thought customers might find the value in it as well.
@Mike Davidovich
You are most welcome. In terms of why TestCoverage was released on OpenExchange, it is something we have been exploring internally last year and wanted to share with the Community in time for Global Summit 2018. In terms of whether or not it will actually make it into product, I can't speak to that but perhaps the author @Timothy Leavitt can comment on that (I believe there were at least exploratory discussions with Product Management on this topic).
The first half of that should be helpful. Code coverage may be helpful too if they are able to move into a CI type BUILD infrastructure (I don't know how well Test Coverage would work in a more dynamic Dev environment as longitudinal history might be harder to maintain ... haven't really thought about that too much before...)
Mike,
We're using UnitTesting for application validation for internal application development within InterSystems. If you have any specific questions, feel free to create new Questions in the D.C. and tag me, or if you would prefer a general discussion you can ask your Account Manager or Sales Engineer to set up a discussion with me.
There have also been several Global Summit presentations which have touched on the topic - not sure if you've seen these?
Best,
Ben Spead
Manager, AppServices, InterSystems
Sorry - I forgot that you first need to specify the source control class in the Management Portal. Put "Source Control" in the Search box on the SMP homepage, and then go to that page (e.g. http://localhost:57772/csp/sys/mgr/%25CSP.UI.Portal.SourceControl.zen). Select the Namespace in the left column and then "%Studio.SourceControl.ISC". Save the changes and try the BaselineExport() again. When you are done with the export, change the Source Control back to "None"
As a general tip, if you do enable and enforce source control, then you wouldn't need to be querying your class definitions to find variations between environments - you could see all of that (and so much more!) in your source control system ;)
I understand ... so you want to only export specific things which it has found to have differences in the code. That makes sense since you are trying to use it at the end of a piece of code already in place. I am afraid I don't know how to do that, but if you contact Support they may be able to suggest a trick or two.
Is there a reason that the use of a Virtual Namespace is a requirement? If not, you can use ##class(%Studio.SourceControl.ISC).BaselineExport() to export the entire contents of the Namespace to disk for file-based diffing (this is how I normally do it)
I can only comment on the original functionality in %Studio.SourceControl.ISC - if you're extending it you will need to do some debugging to see exactly why you are seeing the behavior that you are.
In the original %Studio.SourceControl.ISC class, when working in Connected mode (ie, Caché can issue p4 commands in real time to the Perforce server), the p4 command should take care of changing the file back to ReadOnly, which is what triggers GetStatus() to see it is uneditable and therefore not checked out. It may be that your GetStatus() isn't correctly interpretting the Reaonly state of the file, or if you are on UNIX, it may be that Caché doesn't see it properly as Readonly (this can happen if you are running your instance as Root). Note - I think there may be a bug where after checking the %Studio.SourceControl.Change table isn't updated appropriately, but the primary indicator of checked out/ checked in should be that Readonly bit on the file.
Hopefully this is enough to get you moving on this, and if not then I suggest you call Support to have them take a look with you and debug. If there are any other questions I can answer in this forum I am happy to try.
Best of luck!