Date does not change when checking in with history keyword

jobrien · Post by **jobrien** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:58 pm

We have been Vault users for about a month now, and like it a lot. However, I have noticed the following issue.

I have the $History keyword enabled, so when I check in, the check-in comments get expanded into the file, and the local file is retrieved; the local file indeed contains the latest comment.

I am working in Delphi, which offers (using file notifications, and by examining date and time) to reload any files with newer date/time.

In SOS, when I used to check in, my Delphi IDE would notify me that the file had been changed (because of the addition of the comment) and prompt me to reload it. In Vault, I don't get the prompt. If I close and reopen the file, I see the comment. If I touch the file locally, I get prompted. (The Delphi prompt is based on date/time).

So, it would appear that Vault is not modifying the time on my local file after it expands the keyword (or that it's so fast that the time doesn't seem to have changed). This causes me to lose the checkin comments in my file, for the case where I check in, but keep the file checked out. It also causes Delphi not to reload the now-read-only file, so it still looks writeable in the IDE, an invitation to code loss.

I'm using Vault 3.5.2.5087.

Thanks! Jim O'Brien.

Beth · Post by **Beth** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 3:56 pm

I'm checking this out now, but so far, my check-in comments are fine when I check in with the option to keep the file checked out. Are you adding check out comments too? Or possibly doing a check-in comment on the check-in while keeping checked out and then doing a second check-in comment when you fully check in?

Are any changes happening to the file? I found that Vault does not count the keyword expansion as a modification to the file.

Also, only one comment is generally shown in the history expansion. If I do a check out comment and then a check in comment, it shows the check out comment instead.

jobrien · Post by **jobrien** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:30 pm

Beth wrote:I'm checking this out now, but so far, my check-in comments are fine when I check in with the option to keep the file checked out. Are you adding check out comments too? Or possibly doing a check-in comment on the check-in while keeping checked out and then doing a second check-in comment when you fully check in?

Are any changes happening to the file? I found that Vault does not count the keyword expansion as a modification to the file.

Also, only one comment is generally shown in the history expansion. If I do a check out comment and then a check in comment, it shows the check out comment instead.

The keyword gets expanded fine, but the file does not get a new date/time, so the IDE doesn't know it's changed, and doesn't prompt to reload, so the comment doesn't make it into the code, which one can then re-edit, etc.

I think the local file should pick up a new date/time - it has, after all, changed, and many application use the date and time as an indicator of that.

GregM · Post by **GregM** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 7:55 am

Do you perhaps have Vault configured to get files with modification time instead of current time?

jobrien · Post by **jobrien** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:52 am

GregM wrote:Do you perhaps have Vault configured to get files with modification time instead of current time?

Nope.

Beth · Post by **Beth** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:16 pm

What you are seeing is currently the normal behavior. In this case, the only time a time stamp would be touched is if you did a GET with an overwrite.

If you would like I can take a feature request to change the behavior.

jobrien · Post by **jobrien** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:50 am

Beth wrote:What you are seeing is currently the normal behavior. In this case, the only time a time stamp would be touched is if you did a GET with an overwrite.

If you would like I can take a feature request to change the behavior.

I think that would be great...without some change in the timestamp when the keywords are expanded into the local version, my IDE (and maybe others?) will not know to pick up the changes.

Is this a sufficient request? Or do you have a formal mechanism?

Beth · Post by **Beth** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:42 pm

This is sufficient for a request. If we have additional questions, we'll post back again.

jobrien · Post by **jobrien** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:07 pm

Beth wrote:This is sufficient for a request. If we have additional questions, we'll post back again.

Thanks. Much appreciated.