|
2013-04-12
| ||
| 09:16 | • Closed ticket [9b82775b93]: config file relative path handling policy plus 3 other changes artifact: 7040bb0c75 user: mrwellan | |
|
2013-04-09
| ||
| 12:22 | • New ticket [9b82775b93]. artifact: e8f230f274 user: mrwellan | |
| Ticket Hash: | 9b82775b936561bcd14c12f6e4121c39469291df | |||
| Title: | config file relative path handling policy | |||
| Status: | Closed | Type: | Feature_Request | |
| Severity: | Important | Priority: | Immediate | |
| Subsystem: | Resolution: | Open | ||
| Last Modified: | 2013-04-12 09:16:58 | |||
| Version Found In: | ||||
| Description: | ||||
1. Config file includes are done relative to the location of the first config file
If foo/bar.config contains:
[include configs/nada.config]
and configs/nada.config contains:
[include blah/fuz.config]
Then fuz.config would need to be at foo/blah/fuz.config
2. Config file includes are done relative to the location of the currently being processed config
In the example above fuz.config would be found at foo/configs/blah/fuz.config
3. Config file includes are required to be absolute e.g.
#{getenv MT_RUN_AREA_HOME}/foo/configs/blah/fuz.config
Which policy do you want going forward? I'll ensure we adhere to whatever we choose from here on out. My current test suite assumes policy #3 but I'm fine with supporting either #1 or #2.
mrwellan added on 2013-04-12 15:16:58 UTC: | ||||