google-code-export / saplink

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/saplink
1 stars 2 forks source link

Importing Nuggets should not stop when some objects already exist and overwrite is not active #37

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. import a Nugget with an object already existing (xyz) and a new one
(abc), with option 'no overwrite'

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?

actual output: "xyz already exists. Use overwrite orginals option to
replace". abc is not mentioned in the list nor is it imported.

expected output: 
"xyz already exists. Use overwrite orginals option to replace
abc successfully installed."

xyz is skipped (because it already exists), abc on the other hand is imported.

What version of SAP are you using?
SAP_ABA Release 640 / Level: 3
SAP_BASIS Release 640 / Level: 3

What version of SAPlink are you using:
0.1.2

Please provide any additional information below.

the problem is that dependencies (like table types and structures) are
often not easily spotted when exporting code with multiple objects. e.g.
imported classes with unsatisfied dependencies can even be compiled /
activated without error, but fail with a RABAX (syntax error) when starting.

so in the process of adding missing objects to a nugget, importing the
nugget into the target system, it would be great to allow SAPLink not to
die simply if it encounters the described situation, but only import the
objects that don't exist already.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by nicola.f...@gmail.com on 27 Dec 2006 at 10:08

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
The idea of a nugget is that it is an atomic installation unit.  When you 
install an
update of OpenOffice and you say, "I don't want to install that .dll file," the
install doesn't continue it stops it is a required.  When we start to add more
version information to nuggets you may see some changes to this but overall 
this will
be the policy.

Original comment by daniel.m...@gmail.com on 3 Jan 2007 at 3:32