Permission set difference generated with incorrect 'force-app' text
tamastom opened this issue · comments
Issue verification check:
- is the current repository fully deployable at the commit SHA provided with the 'from' parameter of the command?
What is the problem?
While generating difference for permission set (and other metadata types) for the permission set only, it generates an incorrect force-app text in the name:
<types>
<members>force-app</members>
<name>PermissionSet</name>
</types>It is a similar issue to this one but with permission set this time:
#834
Tried the last two different versions and two different operation systems (Macos locally, ubuntu-latest on the pipeline) as well.
What is the parameter and the value you used with it? (tried with both)
sf sgd:source:delta --from 'dev' --to 'feature/Tamas-Test' --output '.'
sfdx sgd source delta --from 'dev' --to 'feature/Tamas-Test' --output '.'
What is the expected result?
<types>
<members>StoreBuyer</members>
<name>PermissionSet</name>
</types>What is the actual result?
force-app PermissionSetSteps to reproduce
Execution context
Operating System: …
Macos locally and ubuntu within Azure Devops pipeline agent produce the same error
yarn version: …
node version: …
git version: …
sfdx version: …
@salesforce/cli/2.42.6 darwin-arm64 node-v20.12.2
sgd plugin version: …
the last two versions I tried:5.39.1 and latest
More information (optional)
(node:20357) Warning: Deprecated config name: apiVersion. Please use org-api-version instead.
(Use node --trace-warnings ... to show where the warning was created)
{
"error": null,
"output": ".",
"success": true,
"warnings": []
}
Hi @tamastom !
Thanks for raising this issue and thanks for contributing in making this project better!
I just need to add a permission set under the force-app/**/permissionsets/ directory and I'll be able to experience the issue right ?
Hi @tamastom !
Thanks for raising this issue and thanks for contributing in making this project better!
I just need to add a permission set under the
force-app/**/permissionsets/directory and I'll be able to experience the issue right ?
Hİ @scolladon,
That's correct.
Hi @firatesmer !
Thanks for contributing here !
I tried to reproduce and so I created the branch issue/876 in our reproduction playground.
I execute the following commands with sfdx-git-delta@latest (v5.40.0) :
$ git clone git@github.com:scolladon/sfdx-git-delta-reproduction-playground.git
$ git checkout issue/876
$ sfdx sgd:source:delta -f HEAD~1 -dUnfortunately it seems to work fine on my local as it produce this result:
<!-- output/package/package.xml -->
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<Package xmlns="http://soap.sforce.com/2006/04/metadata">
<types>
<members>Marketing</members>
<name>PermissionSet</name>
</types>
<version>59.0</version>
</Package>$ tree output/sgd
output/sgd
└── reproduction
└── playground
└── permissionsets
└── Marketing.permissionset-meta.xmlCould you check on your end that you can reproduce the issue with the reproduction playground please ?
Any help on how to reproduce the issue here please @tamastom @firatesmer ?
@scolladon Getting there:
This is now happened on the playground - looks like it is a relative path issue.
I was on this path (root of the repo) when I used your exact same command:
Documents/projects/permissionset/sfdx-git-delta-reproduction-playground
sfdx-git-delta-reproduction-playground % sfdx sgd:source:delta -f HEAD~1 -d
Thanks for that @tamastom it definitely helps.
Could you give me more context please by providing the result of this command please:
$ uname -v ; yarn -v ; node -v ; git --version ; sfdx --version ; sfdx pluginsIt seems you are not on the branch issue/876 but rather on master. You should not have the apex class listed and the api version should be 59
Could you checkout the branch on the reproduction playground and test again please (git checkout issue/876) ?
Results:
Uname:
Darwin Kernel Version 23.5.0: Wed May 1 20:12:58 PDT 2024; root:xnu-10063.121.3~5/RELEASE_ARM64_T6000
Node:
v20.12.2
Git:
git version 2.39.3 (Apple Git-146)
SFDX:
@salesforce/cli/2.42.6 darwin-arm64 node-v20.12.2
SFDX Plugins:
sfdx-git-delta 5.39.1 (5.39.1)
Uninstalled JIT Plugins:
community 3.2.10
custom-metadata 3.3.7
dev 2.3.1
devops-center 1.2.10
env 3.0.30
functions 1.23.0
signups 2.3.1
@salesforce/sfdx-plugin-lwc-test 1.2.0
@salesforce/sfdx-scanner 3.24.0
Hi @tamastom !
That is very weird...
Could you try with the latest version of the plugin (v5.40.0) and let us know please (sfdx plugins:install sfdx-git-delta@latest) ?
@scolladon FYI I've tried to replicate the issue with v5.40.0, but couldn't' (it was working fine on my end).
Config:
Darwin Kernel Version 23.5.0: Wed May 1 20:09:52 PDT 2024; root:xnu-10063.121.3~5/RELEASE_X86_64
1.22.17
v20.14.0
git version 2.43.0
@salesforce/cli/2.42.6 darwin-x64 node-v20.14.0
sfdx-git-delta 5.40.0
Uninstalled JIT Plugins:
community 3.2.10
custom-metadata 3.3.7
dev 2.3.1
devops-center 1.2.10
env 3.0.30
functions 1.23.0
signups 2.3.1
@salesforce/sfdx-plugin-lwc-test 1.2.0
@salesforce/sfdx-scanner 3.24.0
@scolladon No joy:
That is very weird @tamastom ...
The only difference I see is the git version.
Could you try with something else than the mac version ?
You can install git with brew: brew install git
Could you try with that as well please ?
@tamastom just had same issue and after some debugging I've spotted that our file was located in force-app/**/permissionSets/, making folder name all lowercase -> force-app/**/permissionsets/ fixed the issue.
Hope this helps.
@nazim-aliyev Excellent, indeed it was the issue on our side as well!
Thank you @nazim-aliyev !
I reopen this issue because I still thinks we could improve here as the permission sets are not required to be located in their folder and can be identified by their file extension.
The plugin needs to be able to get the name of the metadata right in those cases.
Shipped in release v5.40.2.
You can install the new version using the version number or the latest-rc channel
$ sfdx plugins:install sfdx-git-delta@latest-rc
$ sfdx plugins:install sfdx-git-delta@v5.40.2Happy incremental deployment!