Hi,
I am exploring the robustness of change management within the EDG working
copy process.
When I open two workflows at the same time from the same production graph
and make changes that are intended to conflict, I don't see any conflict
detection or resolution.
For example:
In WF #1, I delete instance :inst1.
In WF #2, I add the triple {:inst1 :getsDataFrom :inst2.}
I commit WF #1 first, deleting :inst1 and removing all triples about :inst1.
When I commit WF #2, the {:inst1 :getsDataFrom inst2 } triple is added but
is essentially a "hanging" triple because everything else about :inst1 has
been deleted by WF #1.
I was thinking that WF #2 would check to see if the production graph had
been changed and surface all the changes between the WF #2 working copy and
the current production graph, not the production graph WF #2 originated
from.
I also noticed that after committing WF #1, when I ran the "See
Changes/Comparison Report" in WF #2, the full URL for :inst1 was displayed
instead of the label indicating that this report is "sort of" running
against the new production graph created by committing WF #1 (i.e. the
:inst1 rdfs:label triple is gone). HOWEVER, I see the new triple as the
only change even though other changes have occured to the production graph
via WF #1.
Is my understanding of how EDG handles simultaneous workflows correct? If
so, should multiple working copies be permitted? Can this process be
changed so conflicts can be detected and resolved between multiple working
copies (more like how GitHub works)
This is critical functionality to a large use case that I am exploring.
Thanks,
Tim
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TopBraid Suite Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/CAF0WbnLbWWJoc%2BE3vOAiCvLRVtNhvUvBPiEJdH32dZ1McZu0nw%40mail.gmail.com.
