Version increment on date prefix

[Bob Nemec]

Is there a way to have duplicate version names increment on a date prefix if the user initials are the suffix? For example...

• 2026-04-11 BN
• 2026-04-11.1 BN
• 2026-04-11.2 BN
• …

Otherwise a duplicate version increment would be 2026-04-11 BO 

We could put the user initials as a prefix, but the date displays better when looking at history. 

btw: we've successfully used Tonel to import 9632 classes with 54846 methods from VW to VAST ... thanks to help from Mariano and Esteban

[Esteban A. Maringolo]

Hi Bob,

The current version name increment logic is limited, as it only increments the value of the last character.

A configurable formatter could address this by allowing you to define how the string is parsed and which parts should be incremented. I have noted this as a potential enhancement for future development.

Regarding the Tonel migration, I am glad to hear you were successful. It is impressive that you were able to navigate the dialect differences so effectively.

Best regards,

Esteban Maringolo VAST Consultant Senior Software Developer  emari...@instantiations.com  @emaringolo  /emaringolo  instantiations.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "VAST Community Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to va-smalltalk...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/va-smalltalk/b773a11d-d36b-4e75-b20c-e2787f658e3dn%40googlegroups.com.

[Marcus Wagner]

Hi Bob, 

I have a snippet in an app providing this. Attached is an app to import (applies the patch when loaded, removes the patch when unloaded).

Dont know if this zip here survives travelling as attachment, let me know if not. Code is tested on data of your example given (BN) above.

Kind regards

M

[Bob Nemec]

Hey Marcus, 

It works in isolation, but not with a date + id template. But you got me curious, I'll look into your code a bit more...

StsPowerTools defaultDateFormat: '%Y-%m-%d'.
StsPowerTools defaultVersionNameTemplate: '%D %I'.
'2026-04-14.2 BN' stsNextVersionName   ->  '2026-04-16 BN'
'2026-04-16 BN' stsNextVersionName  -> '2026-04-16 BNa'
'2026-04-16.1 BNa' stsNextVersionName  -> '2026-04-16 BN'

StsPowerTools defaultVersionNameTemplate: ''.
'2026-04-16 BN' stsNextVersionName  -> '2026-04-16.1 BN'
'2026-04-16.1 BN' stsNextVersionName  ->  '2026-04-16.2 BN'
'2026-04-16.2 BN' stsNextVersionName  -> '2026-04-16.3 BN'

A blank template is not optimal since it misses the date value we use. 

Bob

[Esteban A. Maringolo]

Hi Bob and Marcus,

Following up on this discussion and our internal requirements, I wanted to let you know that the next version of VAST will introduce an EmVersionNamingStrategy class.

This will include a default singleton and allow developers to define their own subclasses. You will be able to implement custom versioning and parsing algorithms to increment versions according to your specific needs.

Best regards,

Esteban Maringolo VAST Consultant Senior Software Developer  emari...@instantiations.com  @emaringolo  /emaringolo  instantiations.com

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "VAST Community Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to va-smalltalk...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/va-smalltalk/246e7fed-b74e-4f59-969f-7956b8863d6an%40googlegroups.com.

[Marcus Wagner]

Hi Esteban and Bob

Esteban, fIrst, thanks for the announcement of a configurable strategy, as this is a solid way to provide enough room for individual solutions. 

Any rigid general rule won't do, as my snippet has proven, as so many (not communicated) assumptions have to be considered, too.

Many cases here depend on individual requirements, based on the given template support, this will give anybody the opportunity to taylor a solution to his needs.

Bob, if you need s.th. in between, before arrival of the strategy, let me know. 

I intentionally did not assume any template in my suggestion. And even with the information you gave above (to be based on date and id template), other important details are not fixed yet.

e.g. when to create a branch, the position and structure of the version, ... 

Up to know there was the hidden assumption that the version string ends with scheme to be incremented (but the %D %I does not). 

My simple approach thus increments %I (or whatever is at the end of the template, I did not orientate on any place holder).

A strategy is the answer to solve this and to avoid other pitfalls, like incrementing the wrong part or even to make use of my hack to patch an existing version code. 

Kind regards

M