> On 9 Feb 2017, at 12:14, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> wrote: > > Rewriting the import UI is not part of the proposed options right now. > If you have the time to do it, sure. > > In the meantime what we have right now is that you ask to import some > page and don't see anything in the page history while I think most > people will expect to see a new version with an "import" comment.
That’s maybe a technical POV. From a non tech POV, users probably just expect that the content of their wiki after the import is the same as what is in the XAR. As a long time xwiki tech user, checking the history of a page that I know was in a XAR and not seeing an entry and comment would be a WTF for me :) Thanks -Vincent > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 9 Feb 2017, at 10:18, Marius Dumitru Florea >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> If we generate a new version then the user may get confused when comparing >>> the versions. Seeing "No changes" when comparing two consecutive versions >>> of a page can make the user loose his trust in the diff: "There must be >>> some change that the diff doesn't detect because otherwise I wouldn't have >>> two versions". >>> >>> I think we should keep the current behavior but we should improve the >>> status displayed after the import. Besides the list of pages that have been >>> imported (saved with a new version) we can have a list of pages that have >>> been skipped (because there were no changes). Or we could mark the skipped >>> pages distinctly in the list of imported pages. I think the users will >>> appreciate this, especially since it allows them to see clearly what pages >>> have really been changed by the import. >> >> Sounds good to me. Would be nice to have some saved job logs for imports too >> (as we have for DW upgrades) and the info that the page was skipped would be >> in that log and the admin could go back to check what was done for a given >> import. Or something like this. But having a temporary report showing this >> info would already be a good first step. >> >> Thanks >> -Vincent >> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Marius >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi devs, >>>> >>>> We have a unintended regression in the standard import: if what you >>>> import is identical to what is already in the database (including the >>>> author) it won't add a new version (if you use the default option "Add >>>> a new version to the existing page"). >>>> >>>> What happen in practice is that if you keep calling XWikiDocument#set* >>>> methods with the same data it won't update the metadata or content >>>> dirty flags. This flags are what hibernate store look at to know if it >>>> should add a new version or not. >>>> >>>> You can reproduce the same behavior with a simple script which load a >>>> document, always set the same content and save. You will notice that >>>> the history of that document does not change. >>>> >>>> So the question is do we force metadata dirty to true all the time in >>>> the instance output filter or do we keep this feature (in which case >>>> we should optimize it a bit to not do the useless XWiki#saveDocument >>>> but that's another subject). >>>> >>>> WDYT ? >>>> >>>> It could be seen as a nice feature but in practice my first reaction >>>> was WTF and you often want to be sure the import actually did >>>> something so I'm +1 to force metadata dirty. But I'm +0 to keep the >>>> current behavior if there is a majority for it. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Thomas Mortagne >>>> >> > > > > -- > Thomas Mortagne
