IVYIdea facet should respect relative or absolute file paths

[GoogleCodeExporter]

What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Add an IVY Idea facet to a module. 
2. Move the project somewhere else and the ivy.xml file and properties file 
are no longer found.

Here is an example facet:

<facet type="IvyIDEA" name="IvyIDEA">
      <configuration ivyFile="C:\projects\aproject\idea\ivy.xml" 
useProjectSettings="false" useCustomIvySettings="true" 
ivySettingsFile="c:\projects\aproject\ivysettings.xml" 
onlyResolveSelectedConfigs="false">
        <propertiesSettings>
          <propertiesFiles includeProjectLevelPropertiesFiles="true">
            <fileName>c:\projects\aproject\idea\ivy-
idea.properties</fileName>
          </propertiesFiles>
        </propertiesSettings>
      </configuration>
    </facet>

Instead of putting the explicit file path in the XML could you use the 
$MODULE_DIR$ as the prefix the way the rest of the paths do in an iml file 
when relative paths are set? 

We run into this problem a lot because we check projects into a source 
repository and will often have different branches of the project checked 
out to different directories. After checkout we have to visit every IvyIdea 
facet to fix the file paths. 

Original issue reported on code.google.com by harle...@gmail.com on 30 Jul 2009 at 12:25

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The dependencies are now added with relative paths (latest beta 0.9-beta4).

Still looking into the best way of doing the same thing for other file paths in 
the intellij module & project files.

Original comment by guy.mah...@gmail.com on 20 Nov 2010 at 4:34

• Changed state: Accepted
• Added labels: Priority-High
• Removed labels: Priority-Medium

[GoogleCodeExporter]

We have this same need as well.  I've hacked 0.9-beta2 to support relative 
paths for ivy.xml, ivysettings.xml, and the properties files, but it's 
definitely not a great solution.  I'm happy to provide it to whoever is 
maintaining IvyIDEA right now for guidance on how better to implement it.  I'd 
also rather see it go the the trunk but I guess I'll need to file a bug on the 
other issue we're seeing that's keeping us from being able to use the more 
recent version.

Original comment by scottwe...@gmail.com on 10 Aug 2011 at 9:10

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Scott,

it would be great if you could attach a patch to this issue.

thanks,
Maarten

Original comment by maarten....@gmail.com on 11 Aug 2011 at 11:23

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Maarten, what I have right now is pretty hackish.  I'd prefer to run it by 
someone more familiar with IDEA plugin dev so I could clean it up a bit before 
sharing it with with a broader audience.  Would that be you?  If so, what would 
be a good way to get the changes to you?  I'm more than happy to incorporate 
feedback from someone with more experience on how better to implement what I've 
done.

Original comment by scottwe...@gmail.com on 11 Aug 2011 at 5:57

[GoogleCodeExporter]

ok, you can send the patch to my email and I'll try to take a look at it

Original comment by maarten....@gmail.com on 12 Aug 2011 at 7:08

[GoogleCodeExporter]

i think issue 76 (with patch) will also address this issue?

Original comment by maarten....@gmail.com on 13 Aug 2011 at 6:22

[GoogleCodeExporter]

any updates? the lack of this makes it impossible to support mixed dev 
environments

Original comment by rbur...@gmail.com on 9 Mar 2015 at 9:52