Your browser was unable to load all of the resources. They may have been blocked by your firewall, proxy or browser configuration.
Press Ctrl+F5 or Ctrl+Shift+R to have your browser try again.

label checkout with clearcase bug? #408

scastria ·
I am getting an error during my label step with a clearcase repo. It works for all files except the symbolic links. cleartool says, "Not an element". If I test the mklabel command manually on the command line, I get the same error. This tells me clearcase doesn't allow labeling symbol links. However, if I add the -follow option, it will follow the symbolic link and label that instead successfully. Therefore, you might want to hardcode a -follow option in your mklabel cleartool command to handle symbolic links, otherwise, it will fail.
  • replies 4
  • views 2495
  • stars 0
robinshen ADMIN ·
Thanks for point this out. Has been fixed in below build:
http://quickbuild.pmease.com/publish/23 ... 1.2.13.zip

Regards.
Robin
jgeorgeson ·
Is QB manually looping over every element loaded and running mklabel on them individually? I've never seen mklabel throw an error on symlinks when running mklabel with -recurse to label everything visible in my view under a given parent folder.
robinshen ADMIN ·
QuickBuild does the job by creating label on vob path for each loaded element specified in the load rules. So the symbol link might matters in this case. The detail command issued is like below:

mklabel -replace -recurse -follow -c <comment> <label type> <vob path>

What command are you using?

Regards.
Robin
jgeorgeson ·
Plain old mklabel -recurse. I work with scastria and it turns out he has individual load rules for symbolic link elements, so as QB is looping over the load rules it will run the mklabel command directly on a symlink element, causing the error. One concern I've expressed over using -follow is if a later load rule also covers the target of the symlink, then it will it might hit the exception and rerun the mklabel with -replace, making the label operation take longer. But that's more a concern for eliminating redundant load rules where possible.