I am working on analyzing different files between two views in Clearcase. I need to generate output so that I can do this task without an internet connection. What I would like is to run a command that recursively walks through each view and generates a merge/diff output file for each change from view A to view B. This can work like a merge, except that I don't actually want to make any changes.
How can I set this up so that I can continue looking at diff output amidst all of these files while offline? I am using Clearcase, but if another tool can do the same work comparing two directory structures, that's fine, too.
"diff output amidst all of these files while offline?": it sounds as of you are using two dynamic views here (which do need a network connection with the ClearCase Vob server to display any file)
For a task like this, I switch to two snapshot views (which at least download the file on the local disk), and then use any file comparison tools out there (WinMerge, BeyondCompare, KDiff3).
Or I will use git (created directly within the ClearCase views) to compare the two directories.
Related
I'm looking for a way to automate archiving where after I plug my two external drives I can copy all my resources. The problem is that I have different file structures on my laptop and on both external drives so I need to select specific folders to be copied. It means that I can't select one root folder and copy it straightforward. I tried to find a way to declare more than one path in the cp command and in the copy command, without success. An example path:
/my_programming_stuff
/folder1
/folder2
/folder3
/folder4
I want to select only the first 3 folders to copy them into external drive1 and external drive 2. The idea is to create a .bat file that will copy everything at once ( in the best case scenario it will be copied simultaneously on both external drives, so it will be much faster). Another problem is that there needs to be a bypass the ntfs long path limitations (max. 260 characters).
Flags that I want to use:
Copy the files and directories and all of their attributes,
including ownerships and permissions.
Recursively copy directories and their contents.
When copying files from one directory to another, only
copy files that either doesn't exist or are newer than the
existing corresponding files, in the destination
directory.
data verification (so it's certain that the copy was verified)
progression bar with time eta
Until now I was using Total Commander to do this but every day I need to pick only a few folders to be copied which takes time and is inefficient.
I have experience with Bash and PowerShell but I am not sure how to handle this topic.
Create a static batch file with robocopy commands. I think /copyall is the only switch you need to specify for all this. Other defaults should satisfy requirements.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/administration/windows-commands/robocopy
I think your time will be better spent learning how to use either FastCopy or FreeFileSynce. I used FreeFileSync some years ago but got disgusted with the it's constantly changing format of its xml file used for starting a backup, so I switched to FastCopy. But it looks like FreeFileSync may be getting their act together and I aim to do some experiments over the summer to see if I want to switch back to it.
Both can handle the long filename format issues, both can be executed by a batch file, both seem to have a lot of quality, but FreeFileSync has more features - and more bloated because of the features. But speed wise, I think FastCopy is probably one of the better products out there and very streamline in use and design.
Every time I simulate in Dymola, a number of "useless" (for me) files are created in the working directory - i.e. dsfinal.txt, dsin.txt, dslog.txt, dsmodel.c, dymosim.exe. I find it annoying as it messes up my directory.
Is there a way to select only the desired output files to be kept after the simulations, without the need of manually deleting the undesired ones?
Those are temporary, but necessary files for Dymola. As far as I know there is no option to delete them automatically. Of course you could script that, but I don't see a real point to it and those files are used by some functionality - e.g. dsfinal.txt is used when as simulation is continued.
Some notes: Those files are created in the working directory - which should contain temporary files only. The working directory can be set via the GUI using File -> Options -> Settings:
A rather common problem is, that there is a Open and a Load function in Dymola:
As the description states, Load does not influence the working directory, whereas Open sets it to the directory from which a file is opened. The latter is also true for opening files e.g. via a double-click from the explorer. So usually it is better to go with Load.
My advice would be to separate the directories in which models/packages are stored and the working directory. This way the working directories content can be fully deleted basically anytime...
I have an issue with the clearmake command in IBM ClearCase,
I use clearmake command to run my own makefile so i can build my program from the 'C' sourse code.
I want to put a command in make file, like shell cleartool -some-command to ignore all checkouts and all private files.
The disadvantage is that in config spec, i must include the command element * CHECKEDOUT.
But in my use case i want to working with files and the same time i could make a compile/build with the old files, so i could work faster and i shouldn't change views or edit configspecs.
But my contemplation is, if i can ignore the checked outed files with a command, without to lose it.
Could you give me a solution ?
I want to working with files and the same time i could make a compile/build with the old files,
It would be easier to use two different snapshot views loaded on the disk at two different places.
In one (where no checkout has ever been done), you can set all files writables (through Windows, not ClearCase): all the files becomes hijacked, but modifiable, host for compilation/testing purposes.
In the other view, you keep your checked out files and your work in progress (but do not run your clearmake).
We are using Mercurial as an SCM to handle the source script files of a program. Each project we manage has ~5000 files with each file containing a section with some product-specific informations about the file itself (version list, date, time etc.). This section is - due to the way it is structured - in 80% of the merges, the only section that has conflicts. They are easily resolved, but when merging around 300 files, it gets tiresome.
The problem is: I have no control over the way this section is written and I cannot change the format of the section itself, as it would make the file unusable by the program.
My question: is there a way in mercurial (hooks?), that allows me to
pre-process the file with a script
let mercurial do the merge
if merged correctly: post-process the file with a script. otherwise: "resolve-conflicts" as usual.
You could probably get away with it by creating a custom merge tool:
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/MergeToolConfiguration
A simple script that invokes 'diff' after removing the ever changing sections might be enough.
It sounds like those sections are the sort of nonsense that the (disrecommended) KeywordsExtension are built to handle, but I gather you don't have a lot of flexibility around them.
I am doing a refactoring of my C++ project containing many source files.
The current refactoring step includes joining two files (say, x.cpp and y.cpp) into a bigger one (say, xy.cpp) with some code being thrown out, and some more code added to it.
I would like to tell my version control system (Perforce, in my case) that the resulting file is based on two previous files, so in future, when i look at the revision history of xy.cpp, i also see all the changes ever done to x.cpp and y.cpp.
Perforce supports renaming files, so if y.cpp didn't exist i would know exactly what to do. Perforce also supports merging, so if i had 2 different versions of xy.cpp it could create one version from it. From this, i figure out that joining two different files is possible (not sure about it); however, i searched through some documentation on Perforce and other source control systems and didn't find anything useful.
Is what i am trying to do possible at all?
Does it have a conventional name (searching the documentation on "merging" or "joining" was unsuccessful)?
You could try integrating with baseless merges (-i on the command line). If I understand the documentation correctly (and I've never used it myself), this will force the integration of two files. You would then need to resolve the integration however you choose, resulting in something close to the file you are envisioning.
After doing this, I assume the Perforce history would show the integration from the unrelated file in it's integration history, allowing you to track back to that file when desired.
I don't think it can be done in a classic VCS.
Those versioning systems come in two flavors (slide 50+ of Getting git by Scott Chacon):
delta-based history: you take one file, and record its delta. In this case, the unit being the file, you cannot associate its history with another file.
DAG-based history: you take one content and record its patches. In this case, the file itself can vary (it can be renamed/moved at will), and it can be the result of two other contents (so it is close of what you want)... but still within the history of one file (the contents coming from different branches of its DAG).
The easy part would be this:
p4 edit x.cpp y.cpp
p4 move x.cpp xy.cpp
p4 move y.cpp xy.cpp
Then the tricky part becomes resolving the move of y.cpp and doing your refactoring. But this will tell Perforce that the files are combined.