Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

V0.10.x update to date #666

Merged
merged 223 commits into from
Dec 19, 2024
Merged

V0.10.x update to date #666

merged 223 commits into from
Dec 19, 2024

Conversation

isc-shuliu
Copy link
Collaborator

Merging changes from main (v0.9.x) branch

isc-tleavitt and others added 30 commits May 22, 2024 16:07
Even %SYS, but not using the %ALL namespace because that ends up overriding namespace-specific mappings (gah).
Also adds tests, but it seems that this all just works.
If we have unit tests, exotic document types, etc., we won't hit <ILLEGAL VALUE> now.
Add git to container
Change to irishealth-community
Install 0.7.1 as a starting point
fix: ignore case when checking for file existence
enhance: allow specifying pip/pip3 path
@isc-shuliu
Copy link
Collaborator Author

The CIs are failing on GitHub but passing for me locally. Specifically, when migrating from ZPM 0.7, the zpm "list" command doesn't list zpm itself on GitHub while it does for me locally.

@isc-tleavitt
Copy link
Contributor

The CIs are failing on GitHub but passing for me locally. Specifically, when migrating from ZPM 0.7, the zpm "list" command doesn't list zpm itself on GitHub while it does for me locally.

@isc-shuliu it looks like we install zpm in %SYS. In that context, it shouldn't exist in USER.

@isc-shuliu
Copy link
Collaborator Author

It seems the legacy ZPM 0.7.x is always installed in %SYS but CIs were passing fine. https://github.com/intersystems/ipm/actions/runs/12380237397/job/34556166023#step:11:778

I'm guessing something in the migration logic changed this behavior.

@isc-shuliu
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@isc-tleavitt
What is the expected behavior when a user migrate from ZPM 0.7 (which is always installed in %SYS) to the latest IPM from another namespace, say USER? I know we should map IPM globally and migrate repo & module definitions.

But should we list the new 0.10.x zpm module in USER or %SYS?

@isc-tleavitt isc-tleavitt merged commit 0fb097d into v0.10.x Dec 19, 2024
12 checks passed
@isc-tleavitt
Copy link
Contributor

@isc-tleavitt What is the expected behavior when a user migrate from ZPM 0.7 (which is always installed in %SYS) to the latest IPM from another namespace, say USER? I know we should map IPM globally and migrate repo & module definitions.

But should we list the new 0.10.x zpm module in USER or %SYS?

We should list it wherever the installer was run.

@isc-shuliu isc-shuliu deleted the v0.10.x-update-to-date branch January 7, 2025 22:17
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants