nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

OD 5.6 Help with using multiple pathSpecifications

rimcc

Base (ENG: [...] Component Version : 5.6.0.1.0 Build 41496 Interwoven 20041006) on Win2k advanced server
Receiver (ENG: [...] Component Version : 5.6.0.1.0 Build 41496 Interwoven 20041006) on Win2003 Server standard
(i.e. both base and reciever are 5.6 SP1 with latest patches).

Hi,

I'm having trouble achieving the following (A,B,C,D, E are dirs containing sub-dirs and files), for filelist based deployments:

SRC/A -- deploys to --> TGT/apps/A
SRC/B -- deploys to --> TGT/apps/B
SRC/C/D -- deploys to --> TGT/data/C/D
SRC/C/E -- deploys to --> TGT/data/C/E
SRC/F/G -- deploys to --> TGT/data/F/G
SRC/F/H -- deploys to --> TGT/data/F/H

If in the deployment config I include multiple pathSpecifications under one sourceFilesystem I get this error:

[...]
LIB: 2005-03-17 18:40:55 ERROR: Deployment (.proj_b2csys_apps_filelist20050317_184054.web_filelist.b2csysweb): Size of local directories[3] is not equal to that of of filelist[1]
[...]

and if I use multiple sourceFilesystems, each with a single pathSpecification, I get this error:

[...]
LIB: 2005-03-17 18:25:33 ERROR: Deployment (.proj_b2csys_apps_filelist20050317_182532.web_filelist.b2csysweb): For downrev to OD5.6.0 or before, when using file_list mode only one local_directory section is allowed.
[...]

I've attached the deployment conf and error logs for each case.

As far as I can tell from the manuals the deployment config should be fine with either multiple pathSpecifications or multiple sourceFilesystems. Am I missing
something, or could I achieve the same goal in a simpler way?

Any help or info much appreciated.

Richard.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Adam Stoller

You didn't attach the config file - nor did you include a sample [actual situation] of the filelist you are providing for it (along with any other information about the command line flags used in the invokation of the deployment).

--fish
Senior Consultant, Quotient Inc.
http://www.quotient-inc.com

rimcc

<Sigh>. The irony being that I had just read your post about DevNet postings in bit bucket. Then I previewed twice and lost the attachment in the meantime.
This time all logs and config and filelist should be attached. These are actual logs/config (apart from some additional commenting added after the fact).

The config (proj_b2csys_apps_filelist.xml) contains a comment detailing how it is called, but I'll repeat it here:

iwodcmd.exe start proj_b2csys_apps_filelist -inst 20050318_114004 -k "source_area=Y:\default\main\Apps\b2c_upgrade\STAGING"
-k "filelist=E:\Apps\Interwoven\iw-home/custom/logs/deploy/filelist/filelist_21934_21943_20050318_113713.log" -k "type=filelist"

Richard.

Adam Stoller

The part of your config that I find potentially suspicious is: <pathSpecification>
<path name="pub" />
<filters>
<includePath subPath="common" />
<includePath subPath="internet" />
</filters>
<targetRules area="F:\deploytest\data">
<filters>
<includePath subPath="common" />
<includePath subPath="internet" />
</filters>
</targetRules>
</pathSpecification>

<pathSpecification>
<path name="conf" />
<filters>
<includePath subPath="common" />
<includePath subPath="rmte_srvr" />
</filters>
<targetRules area="F:\deploytest\data">
<filters>
<includePath subPath="common" />
<includePath subPath="rmte_srvr" />
</filters>
</targetRules>
</pathSpecification>I believe that you are [perhaps unintentionally] forcing two different source directories: pub/common and conf/common to deploy to the exact same target directory: F:/deploytest/data/common - and you have doDeletes="yes" set which means that both of these legs will be overwriting each other.

The other likely issue here, though I cannot remember whether it was/should be supported, is having multiple pathSpecification elements in a filelist deployment - clearly having a single pathSpecification element with a single filelist makes sense, and having a 1:1 relationship between filelists and pathSpecifications (as you would in your multi-sourceFilesystem version) would seem to make sense - but trying to have a 1:3 (or 3:1 depending on how you look at it) relationship between the pathSpecifications and filelist is questionable.

If I recall correctly - the contents of the filelist are expected to be relative to the sourceFilesystem area+path name and that's not the case here. Perhaps if you change your config to look like this: <sourceFilesystem area = "$source_area^" filelist = "$filelist^">
<pathSpecification>
<path name="." />
<filters>
<includePath subPath="AAA-EAR.ear" />
</filters>
</pathSpecification>

<pathSpecification>
<path name="." />
<filters>
<includePath subPath="pub\common" />
<includePath subPath="pub\internet" />
</filters>
<targetRules area="F:\deploytest\data\pub">
<filters>
<includePath subPath="common" />
<includePath subPath="internet" />
</filters>
</targetRules>
</pathSpecification>

<pathSpecification>
<path name="." />
<filters>
<includePath subPath="conf\common" />
<includePath subPath="conf\rmte_srvr" />
</filters>
<targetRules area="F:\deploytest\data\conf">
<filters>
<includePath subPath="common" />
<includePath subPath="rmte_srvr" />
</filters>
</targetRules>
</pathSpecification>

</sourceFilesystem>it might work?

(I have no idea why it thinks you're running a downRev deployment when you use multiple sourceFilesystem elements)

--fish
Senior Consultant, Quotient Inc.
http://www.quotient-inc.com

rimcc

Thanks for highlighting those issues Ghoti. In the end, and after many requirements changes, I chained the deployments to the TGT/apps and TGT/data dirs and that simplified things greatly for me.

Richard.