SccProjectName and Enhanced Plugin

[Don57]

I noticed that when you use the enhanced SourceGear Vault client plugin (we're using 5.1.1 on VS2010), the value for SccProjectName is stored directly in the project file, whereas when you use the classic plugin the value is stored in an MSSCCPRJ.SCC file (the value for the SccProjectName tag in the project file is "SAK", in this latter case).

This is all fine, but what I don't understand is that the SccProjectName, when stored in the MSSCCPRJ.SCC via the classic client, is a "rooted" repository path (e.g. "Scc_Project_Name = $/SomeFolder/SomeSubfolder/MyProject") whereas the value for the same SccProjectName tag, when stored in the project file via the enhanced client, is just the name of the project (e.g. <SccProjectName>MyProject</SccProjectName>).

I had a custom utility that I wrote which parsed the repository paths for numerous projects from the MSSCCPRJ.SCC files in order to do mass "get latest" operations using the command line utility vault.exe, like so:

Code: Select all

vault.exe GET -makereadonly -ssl -exclusive -host "myhostinfo" -user myusername -password mypassword -repository MyRepository "$/SomeFolder/SomeSubfolder/MyProject"

However, now that I've started using the enhanced SourceGear Vault client, I'm having trouble updating my utility to work with projects where the repository path is stored in the project file and not in the MSSCCPRJ.SCC because the value stored in the SccProjectName tag is no longer the rooted repository path that vault.exe needs.

Is there someway to get the rooted repository path from a file somewhere for a project that I added to the vault using the enhanced client? I'd like to be able to continue using my custom utility without any drastic changes.

[Beth]

There currently isn't a way around the relative paths with the Enhanced Client. The relative paths are actually a better choice for integration with Visual Studio. I can put in a feature request, but that doesn't help you now, and I'm not sure it would be a good change for us to make.

Were there other reasons you moved to using the Enhanced Client? The Vault Classic Client still works with VS 2010, so continuing to use that might be a viable option for you.

[Don57]

We use the same folder structure for our working copies as with the code in the vault -- I agree that's the 'proper' way to do things -- so it should not be a problem for me to come up with a workaround by making my utility assume the file structure is the same. I was hoping to make the program a little more robust without having to make that assumption, but it looks like that's not possible right now.

Thanks for the response!

[Beth]

Thanks for your thoughts on this and feedback.