Inconsistent behavior when using Stage by Transport

[jelliottp]

We are attempting to use abapGit for code reviews now, so that typically means pushing changes contained in a transport. I'm seeing one odd behavior here.

1. Initially we use Transport to Branch. This works fine by selecting the main request, and commits and PR are created.
2. If more changes are needed after a review, we would use Stage by Transport to generate another commit based off the changes in the transport. However, the transport selection in this option differs from Transport to Branch. If I try to input the same main request as above (in the Select Request/Task modal), I get an error that nothing can be selected. It only works if the transport sub-task is provided (and if there are multiple tasks, it still correctly finds all the changed objects for all tasks).

Is this the intended behavior? We also do not get the modal for selecting a transport if you use * in the transport field (like we would for Transport to Branch).

[mbtools]

True. It's not the same. I don't think this was really intended.

Transport by Branch (zif_abapgit_popups~popup_to_select_transports):

Stage by Transport (zif_abapgit_popups~popup_select_wb_tc_tr_and_tsk):

There are actually 4 different transport popups:

• POPUP_TO_SELECT_TRANSPORTS
• POPUP_TRANSPORT_REQUEST
• POPUP_SELECT_TR_REQUESTS
• POPUP_SELECT_WB_TC_TR_AND_TSK

This needs a bit of work to standardize on one popup...

Actually, it should be refactored into an HTML popup since we want to get away from GUI popups.

[larshp]

hmm, well, from my point of view, its not really intended to be used that way. You will get differences, possibility for manual errors, and not a very good developer experience

just run the background logic again, nothing manually to do, logic will be the same

[jelliottp]

hmm, well, from my point of view, its not really intended to be used that way. You will get differences, possibility for manual errors, and not a very good developer experience

just run the background logic again, nothing manually to do, logic will be the same

@larshp Do you mind elaborating on this? Are you saying what we’re attempting to do isn’t intended?