2 Replies Latest reply on Oct 18, 2016 9:33 AM by JulianWigman

    2016.3 TTL

    JulianWigman Expert

      Hi LANDESK, I read the below paragraph below in the  2016.3 "What's New" doc  and I must say a tad surprised to say the least. Can you explain what has driven these changes?

       

      Whilst I can see that the first bullet point is a bug,  the changes in the other 3 bullets I fear could well be a retrograde step IMHO.  These existing values are quite often changed as part of a new design change and if I'm reading correctly these will now not TTL over.  This'll mean that they will have to be changed as an additional activity post TTL and this will mean extended downtime (typically evening work) and increased business risk for the LIVE system sync.  Maybe it would have been OK to flag in the "differences" section post compare and ask whether they should be copied or not, but  to ignore updates and deletions will be making extra work for the consultants IMHO. 

       

      "...

      Changes to Test to Live

      A few changes have been made to which data is migrated by Test to Live:

      • attachment data (tps_attachment_data) is not migrated from test to live
      • groups and roles in the live database are not changed or deleted when you use Test to Live – only new groups that have been added to the test database are migrated to live
      • reference lists, ordered lists, and categories in the live database are not changed or deleted when you use Test to Live – only new items that have been added to the test database are migrated to live
      • agreements and response levels in the live database are not changed or deleted when you use Test to Live – only new agreements and response levels that have been added to the test database are migrated to live

      ..."

        • 1. Re: 2016.3 TTL
          Peter Weighill Specialist

          I can actually see some advantages to not transfering over updates to lists as sometimes these need to be update in live, even although dev work is going on.

           

          Not updating roles could be problematic though, as these do get updated quite a bit, especially if there are process changes, then there are usually role permission changes that need doing at the same time.

           

          I agree that it would be better if the items were compared and then there was a prompt asking which of the items to update and which to leave unmodified.

          • 2. Re: 2016.3 TTL
            JulianWigman Expert

            As you say Peter, sometimes you do and sometimes you don't, so making it optional would be much better IMHO for each difference found; we're used to this in Design Transfer for example.

             

            Also as consultants we have a proven procedure for first moving design from DEV to UAT and then post-UAT to LIVE; if there are any issues then they can be addressed close to the LIVE sync via testing a current copy of LIVE again first near to the point of the actual LIVE work. At least then we know we can retrace our footsteps with the actual LIVE sync and get the system back online quickly.  Now it seems we have post-sync design work to document and re-do again.

             

            Also I think it was pretty clear message to users of LIVE before, don't touch anything in LIVE during the "Design Freeze"!  Now though they can do limited changes so going to "muddy the waters" somewhat IMHO on how to communicate and police.