Community
Participate
Working Groups
Similar to the UI we have now for running API usage scans, we should do something for migration scans. If running a migration scan is available via the external tools launcher, more people will be included to use migration scans.
I'll put it in my bucket, I'm just about done with the functionality.
Created attachment 163847 [details] org.eclipse.pde.api.tools.ui.patch A first cut at the functionality. Still not working completely yet, need to dig why.
Created attachment 163848 [details] org.eclipse.pde.api.tools.ui.patch An updated patch.
Do you guys have an example of a migration scan that would show me some red flags?
Olivier, any ideas why I'm still not getting any migration report information out of this? I'm using the attached uses scan and pointing to Eclipse 3.6M6...
Created attachment 163949 [details] Galileo Usage Scan
The attached scan is already a migration scan. I think you want the usage scan files.
Created attachment 164083 [details] org.eclipse.pde.api.tools.ui.patch An updated patch that is ready for final review.
Mike, can you review this for the next i-build?
(In reply to comment #9) yes
-1 from me for this patch, it needs a lot of polishing and fails out-right when I try to run a scan. 1. there is no help doc 2. the tab has the wrong name: says API Use Report, should be API Migration Report (or something similar) 3. the error reporting for the use scan field happens in the wrong field: after I entered a report location and when I was entering a regex pattern in the 'For' field I get an error message: "You must enter a use scan location". Even after filling in all the rest of the fields the error does not go away unless I change the candidate? 4. the grouping is a bit confusing, I would make the 'Analyze' group be the 'Candidate' group and move the use scan controls to their own group 'Use Scan' 5. the option for generating only the HTML for an existing migration should be included. 6. the tab opens to an error about needing a report location. I would assume it would open telling me I need to enter a use scan location first. 7. trying to run a scan fails immediately with an error dialog stating "API baseline name unspecified", when I do in fact, have a baseline selected
If I give you an updated patch, would you consider for M7? (In reply to comment #11) > -1 from me for this patch, it needs a lot of polishing and fails out-right when > I try to run a scan. > > 1. there is no help doc This isn't critical immediately. > 2. the tab has the wrong name: says API Use Report, should be API Migration > Report (or something similar) Fair enough. > 3. the error reporting for the use scan field happens in the wrong field: after > I entered a report location and when I was entering a regex pattern in the > 'For' field I get an error message: "You must enter a use scan location". Even > after filling in all the rest of the fields the error does not go away unless I > change the candidate? Bug. > 4. the grouping is a bit confusing, I would make the 'Analyze' group be the > 'Candidate' group and move the use scan controls to their own group 'Use Scan' I was struggling a bit with this and I think having two groups is fine. > 5. the option for generating only the HTML for an existing migration should be > included. How does this make sense? Why would you do this? > 6. the tab opens to an error about needing a report location. I would assume it > would open telling me I need to enter a use scan location first. Ok, we can improve that. > 7. trying to run a scan fails immediately with an error dialog stating "API > baseline name unspecified", when I do in fact, have a baseline selected I didn't hit this but we can track it.
(In reply to comment #12) > If I give you an updated patch, would you consider for M7? Certainly. > 1. there is no help doc > > This isn't critical immediately. True but I don't want to have go back and add doc later, might as well just do it now... > 5. the option for generating only the HTML for an existing migration should be > > included. > > How does this make sense? Why would you do this? As you have the ability to generate XML only, you might want to be able to just create the HTML, or if new HTML report features become available you might want to simply recreate the HTML without having to redo the entire scan.
