I'm using Intellij's IDEA tasks&contexts feature: I usually work on several tasks a day and I need to switch among them by saving and associating uncommitted changes to a task: this way, when I switch task, I have a clean slate and/or I can get back the status I was working on without shelve/unshelve as a second mechanical step, which is cumbersome.
Is that possible?
Currently it's not possible.
There is a feature request, please feel free to vote:
https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/IDEA-210486/Auto-shelving-and-auto-unshelving-when-Task-switching
Related
IntelliJ has the "task" feature where you can track the context for a Jira task, for example.
Now, I changed several files within this task und committed a few times. After a week, I returned to this project and I'd like to see all changed files for this task, from the start of the task until where I left of. I cannot find an option to do this, is this somehow possible?
By default creating a new task offers you to create a separate branch for this task. If you did so, all your commits are in that branch.
If you used another branch, I don;t think there is an easy way to do what you want. You could try checking the saved contexts under Tools - Tasks and Context - Load context
I have sequence of steps that an user does, e.g. logging on the a remote UNIX shell, creation of files/directories, changing permission, Running remote Shell scripts and commands, File deletion, File movements,
Run DB queries and basis the query results perform certain tasks exporting the results to a file or run further shell commands/scripts or DB insert statements etc etc.
doing there steps users achieves different processed or data processing and validating.
What is the best way to automate the above schenerio, Should we go for a Workflow tools like Activiti etc. or is there a better framework/way to achieve the requirements.
My requirement is to work with Open-source, and possibly Java based.
I am completely new to this so any help pointers would be appreciated.
The scenario you describe is certainly possible with a workflow tool like Activiti. Apache Camel or Spring Integration would be another possibility (as all the steps you mention are automatic system tasks).
A workflow framework would be a good option if you need one of these
you want to store the history data for 'audit purposes': who did what/when/how long did it take.
you want to visually model your steps, perhaps to discuss it with business people.
there is a need for human interaction between some of the steps
Your description reminds me of a software/account provisioning process.
There are a large number of provisioning tools on the market both Open Source or otherwise (Dell Crowbar is one options).
However, A couple of the comments you made in your response to Joram indicate a more general purpose tool such as Activiti may be an option:
"Swivel Chair" tasks - User tasks that may one day be automated
Visual model of process state
Most provisioning tools dont allow for generic user tasks and dont provide a (good) visual model of the process state.
However, they generally include remote script execution which would need to be cobbled together as a service task if using a BOM tool.
I would certainly expand my research to include provisioning tools as they sound like a better fit, however if you cant find anything that works for you, a BPM platform provides a generic framework to build what you need.
The title is pretty clear but again: How do I disable "activities" for a custom module on SugarCRM 6.5+ 7+
I have a module containing millions of records and activities has been slowing it down to a breaking point. I managed to stop the activities through some hacking (deleting entries from the cache folder) but I would like to know how to do it the right way so on repair&rebuild + etc things will be normal/ok.
//edit1:
I'm happy to completely disable activities for a limited period of time while my script runs and then enable it again right after if that is possible.
Well, I figured out how to disable activities (activity stream, known in the past as sugar feed I think).
As my problem was running a script on 100k records etc disabling the whole activity stream temporarily in the beginning of the script and then turning it back on in the end was sufficient.
It's quite simple and it feels like an embarrassment I didn't look into the activity stream's source before since in order to disable it a simple:
Activity::disable();
does the job and to turn it back on:
Activity::enable();
There is also a "blacklist" array in the source etc but 1- It didn't solve the problem and 2- It's clearly not upgrade safe etc.
Why isn't it standard behavior for Accurev to automatically run an "Update" upon opening the program? "Update" updates a user's local sandbox with the latest files from the building/promoted area.
It seems like expected functionality that the most recent files should be synchronized first.
I'm not claiming that it should always update, but curious as to why an auto-Update wouldn't be correct.
Auto-updating could produce some very unwanted results.
Take this scenario: you're in the middle of a development task, but you've made a mistake and need to revert a file that you just modified. So you open AccuRev, but before you have a chance to "revert to most recent version", you are bombarded with 100 files that have been changed upstream including the one you want to revert. You are now forced into the position of resolving all the merge conflicts before your solution will build, including the merge of your (possibly unstable) code in progress.
Requiring the user to manually update keeps a protective 'bubble' around the developer, allowing them to commit (keep) changes within their own workspace without bringing down code changes that could destabilise the work in their sandbox. When the developer gets to a point where his code is ready to share with others, that is the appropriate time to do an update and subsequently build/retest the merged codebase before promoting.
However there is one scenario that I do believe auto-updating could be useful: after a workspace is reparented. i.e. when a developer's workspace is moved from one part of the stream hierarchy to another. Every time we reparent we have to do a little dance:
Accept the confirmation dialog that reminds us (rather verbosely) that we need to update our workspace before we can promote any changes.
Double-click the workspace to view its files.
Wait for AccuRev to do a "Pending" search, to determine whether any file changes are waiting to be committed.
And finally, perform the Update.
Instead of just giving us a confirmation dialog, it would be nice if AccuRev could just ask us if we want to Update immediately.
I guess it depends on preference. I for one wouldn't like the auto-update feature.
Imagine you have a huge project and you don't want to build it every time you start Accurev. But you also can't debug because the source files and debugging info no longer correspond.
We have a particular file, say X.zip that is only modified by 1 or 2 people. Hence we don't want the build to trigger on every check-in, as the other files are mostly untouched.
I need to check for a condition prior to building, whether the checked-in item is "X.zip" or not.. if yes, then trigger a build, else don't. We use only CI builds.
Any idea on how to trigger the build only when this particular file is checked-in? Any other approaches would be greatly appreciated as i am a newbie in TFS...
Tara.
I don't know of any OOTB feature which can do this, what you would need to do is write your own custom MSBuild task which is executed prior to the build running (pre-build action).
The task will then need to use the TFS API to check the current check in for the file you want and if it's not found you'll have to set the task to failed.
This isn't really ideal as it'll indicate to Team Build a build failure, which, depending on whether you're using check in policies, may be unhelpful. It'd also be harder to at-a-glance work out which builds failed because of the task and which failed because of a real problem.
You can change the build to occur less frequently rather than every check in, which will reduce load on your build server.
Otherwise you may want to dig into Cruise Control .NET, it may support better conditional builds.
If you could move X.zip into it's own folder, then you could set up a CI build with a workspace that only looked at the folder containing X.zip.
You would then need to add an explicit call to tf get to download the rest of the code as Team Build only downloads what the workspace is looking at.
But this might be simpler than the custom task approach?