<@U5375UUJ2> The script in question which is not f...
# sdf
a
@stalbert The script in question which is not found in the account while deploying, is it part of a suiteapp which is already in account? Or it exists in the project but sdf is not finding it? I am not 100% sure but if you have a dependency on a script which is part of another suiteapp, that might create the problem you are facing. If its part of your project then Sdf should resolve the dependency automatically and if this is not happening then its a bug. When you run add dependencies, it is adding the dependency in manifest? (In case your referenced script is in account and not in project)
If you can share the project example after removing sensitive information i can check it. Or if you want you can open a case with TS and attach your project to the issue.
e
It sounded to me like both are defined in the same project.
s
both were indeed in the same project and this is a customization project, not a SuiteApp. Also fyi this was deploying to a freshly refreshed sandbox, if that means anything.
@Ali Syed (NS DevTools QA) can you confirm that SDF should be able to automatically manage order-of-deployment needs for objects inside the project?
a
@stalbert SDF should be able to manage the order of deployment, if your deploy xml is like this
Copy code
<files>
   <path>~/FileCabinet/*</path>
 </files>
 <objects>
    <path>~/Objects/*</path>
 </objects>
To the best of my memory, If you have manually referenced the files then you have to place them in correct order. (i will double check this)
s
ah, I am manually selecting the entries (intentionally) in deploy.xml. I hope the order is handled in this case - we currently allow more files and/or objects in those folders than we want to deploy on any given customization. In other words, we want to be specific about what we're deploying and shy away from blind wilcard selection as shown above.
Also notable - I've been manually specifying elements in
deploy.xml
for quite some time and haven't ran into a deployment order problem until now. Maybe that's just a coincidence?