We are currently migrating from PowerBuilder 2017 R3 to 2019 R3.
We are using Git for source code control.
In our application Git repo we have multiple folders at the root level, one of which is our Powerbuilder folder, which contains all the PowerBuilder files. The other folders have to do with other files needed for installation, database stuff etc.
Can someone please confirm that the PowerBuilder workspace file has to exist at the root level of our repo (i.e. where the .git folder exists)?
And also confirm that the ws_objects folder gets created in the same folder as the workspace file.
Currently our workspace file exists in our PowerBuilder folder but when we open that workspace we don't have access to any of the new Git functionality (like creating and switching branches). I'm assuming because it can't find the .git folder and so has no idea that it is using Git. Is that correct?
I would prefer to keep our workspace file in the PowerBuilder folder but I assume to do that I would have to create a Git repo for that folder in order for PowerBuilder to know it was using Git and then I would have a nested Git repo.
What is best practices? Should I have one repo or a nested PowerBuilder repo?
- You are here:
-
Home
-
Q&A
-
Q&A
-
PowerBuilder
- Workspace location for Git SCC
-
Gene Kanten
- PowerBuilder
- Thursday, 4 February 2021 13:41 PM UTC
evaluating PowerBuilder 2019R3 we came across the same issue. Our neat project structure gets quite awkward by the stated behavior.
It might be still acceptable to place one single tiny file, the PowerBuilder workspace file (.pbw) in the main project folder, instead into a dedicated src\pb folder where all PB related code is currently stored. There seems to be no other way to integrate PB sources into the context of a larger project in SCM.
BTW: It's a little bit annoying that with "Add to Source Control" a new .git sub folder is taciturnly created within a folder belonging to a bigger scoped Git project, with a .git repo just two folder levels upwards. A 'nested repo' creates quite some cumbersome problems; the Git approaches "submodules" or "subtree" are not convincing.
However, 'hard coding' a sub-folder "ws_objects" on the same level is quite awkward and ugly. At least, I would have expected some sort of configuration to define "ws_objects" elsewhere (or better in a more sensible place).
Using SCM tools since 20 years with PowerBuilder and a 'flattened' layout for all PB objects within the mentioned dedicated PB folder, I am not so convinced that the 'reproduction' of .pbl as sub-folders is a must. (The only reason I can see is, that anybody would have used the same name for different objects belonging to different targets, in different .pbl of course; not a good idea anyhow!)
Originally, we were quite thrilled by the possibility to exploit a native integration of GIT in Powerbuilder IDE. Now we are somehow deceived by reality...
Would there be any chance of making the 'hard-coded' constraints somehow configurable?
Regards,
Tom Jiang