Running SynchronizeExports just partially (read or write updates) is not possible using the COM object model nor using CLI. This is already logged in our developer database as CRQ-30757, but I'm not sure, when it will be implemented.

On the other side, I don't think that running the full SynchronizeExports will overwrite anything. Developers are changing source entries, while translators are adding translations to the project. What might happen is, that a recently imported new translation will be set to untranslated or for review due to the fact that developers again changed the source content.

Good morning Achim Herrmann ,

thank you very much for your reply.

You've written, that "...just partially (read or write updates) is not possible using the COM object model nor using CLI".
But if that's the case, what does the Export Manager during "reading Updates" and "writing updates"? Isn't that a function, which only reads or writes updates? And if it's only reading or writing updates: Isn't it possible, tu use these functions in a macro?

Best regards and have a great day.
Nils

No, these functions are just implemented in the GUI. Making them available in COM or CLI always needs extra coding and testing and documentation. In the past, no other user requested this and as explained, I don't think that this is necessary.

Hello Achim Herrmann ,

thank you very much for your clarification.

How would you "advise" to process when updating a exported .lpu with new and changed strings from our developers?
Would you start by running a synchronization to get all changes from the translators, then updating the string lists and running another synchronization?
Or would you just update the string lists with the changes from the developers and run the synchronization after updating has been finished?

Best regards
Nils

I personally never used single actions like read updates / write updates. I always used the full SynchronizeExports, either from GUI or in a macro. In general, I call it twice, the first call when starting my session, the second before I quite Passolo.

Hello Achim Herrmann ,

thank you very much for your information.
I'm going to change our macro that way, that synchronization will be executed twice. First, when starting the session and the second at the end of the session.

Best regards and have a great weekend in advance.
Nils