I have started a project using a simple incremental versioning scheme like V1__, V2__, V3__.
I'm not happy with it. It causes problems when working on multiple branches: pull-requests need to be updated with the latest number when a different branch which has added migrations is merged before.
We have already deployed migrations to production.
Is it possible to change the versioning scheme after the fact?
I feel that simply renaming it will cause Flyway to throw an Exception. We cannot clear the production database.
Does anybody have experience with this? Any tips are appreciated.
Related
I got into an argument with a co-worker regarding EF Core migrations and how we should handle them in a team environment. The current process we use (which I designed) is to use a branch with our names and self databases so every changes we make , we add-migration in our databases and branches and then merge our branches to develop branch. to prevent conflicts with migrations we add migration folder in gitignore in our branches. but the problem is we dont have migration history in git. but i have problem with this becuase we should have all changes in git.
Are there any best practices regarding this? we want to have migration histories in git branches and prevent EF Core migrations in a team?
how Handle EF Core migrations conflict in a team with different branches?
Everyone should be working on the same set of migrations checked into git. They can add (and remove) new ones locally while developing features, but as you said, they need to be careful when pushing and pulling changes that might conflict.
See Migrations in Team Environments for pointers.
I would like to know where can i find or whats the official process to consider when you have to update both the modules and the core in a Drupal 7 site at same time.
I mean, what do i have to update first?
Modules then Core, Core then modules or it doesn't matter at all or it depends of each module documentation?
Also i would like to know if this process changed in Drupal 8.
I have found the process to update each one but not together.
I always do modules then core, but if you have a good reference or any article with a justification for this will be better to understand why.
Thanks in advance
Firstly I would suggest you to use drush commands to upgrade core version. It will take care of the rest. But if you want to do manually then you can continue reading below answer.
In my opinion you have to update the core first ( if there is latest core and the core required modules available ) and then you can update other modules i.e contrib modules. At the end custom modules based on compatibility.
After placing the latest code you can use drush updb or {your domain}/update.php to update your database.
Or else you can do it in the following way:
Download latest drupal code, place your custom code inside it and use the old database and then run update. This is not the correct way but sometimes it works.
Note: Before doing any of the steps above always work in local environment and keep a backup. Never try it on production.
Thanks
We have a web application and occasionally a bug will creep up that needs to be taken care of and fixed. We are using subversion as our code repository. What I am wrestling with is at what point do you create a new branch or tag. We were thinking that if the application needed to be rebuilt or the MSI needed to be rebuilt then we would create a branch. In the case of something simple like a typo, we would just distribute out the offending .aspx page.
What are some of your strategies for branching and building strategies?
Currently, ours looks like this. We have a class library, and Web application. We make our corrections, copy over the changed pages/DLLs to the MSI Creator (Advanced Installer) then rebuild our MSI. We are debating on whether or not to use a web deployment project/MSbuild or something similar. We need it to be reproducible, reliable and simple.
When you release your code, you would "tag" it. Let's say you tag it with "ReleaseVersion_1.2.3.4"
The "trunk" would be your main branch. And you continue to develop there.
If a bug comes along for a customer who has the released code, you would branch from the "tag" ( "ReleaseVersion_1.2.3.4" ), and would hotfix something there.
Then you would most likely merge code from this HotFix back to "trunk".
That's the simplest way.
There are many options for branch strategies.
But if your code hotfixes are occasional, this one will work.
I'm developing an application, using Symfony 2.3, which will have to be installed for different customers. We will offer different features so the idea is to have the features/bundles separate from the main app and load the into the project using composer. As we are using Doctrine Migrations to maintain DB changes across versions I'm unsure on how to go about using them from a bundle. We're using Capifony to deploy the app to the live server.
So my question is... how can I automatize the execution of migrations from composer loaded bundles?
I ended up creating a command that will copy all migration files from predefined directories in bundles to the default location and then executing doctrine:migrations:migrate from within the command.
For a complex deployment, I used phing. He easily integrate with the Symfony console. But in the end I use of a simple code on the Synfony console.
Composer can easily call Symfony app commands as "post-install-cmd"
I don't think "composer loaded bundles" is the issue here. For instance, you could have several bundles in src/ (part of the app or submoduled) and have the exact same problem. The issue is having multiple entity managers and databases for your different bundles. Where they actually reside is trivial.
Anyway, I'm having the exact same problem. After some searching, I discovered there is actually an open pull request to fix this: https://github.com/doctrine/DoctrineMigrationsBundle/pull/46
I'm hoping it gets fixed soon!
So, I have an asp.net mvc app that is being worked on by multiple developers in differing capacities. This is our first time working on a mvc app and my first time working with .NET. Our app does not have a lot of unit tests in it...
The problem we are having is trying to keep each other from overwriting each others changes. For example:
Two developers are both working on the app and Jon (not his real name) makes a change to a controller, compiles a new dll, and checks in his stuff (both the controller and the dll.) Our svn system automatically updates our DEV server with the changes that Jon just made.
Clyde (also not a real name) also makes a change right about the same time but did not update the code with Jon's change and commits a new dll thereby "forgetting" about Jon's change.
This happens a lot. The question I'm asking is more of a workflow question - how do we solve this issue? Is it just a matter of Clyde needing to be more careful? Can anybody recommend a decent process for us to use?
You don't check in the DLL's. Exclude the bin folder from Subversion in its entirety. It's the .cs files that matter and that will be compiled locally on every computer that checks out the code from Subversion. If your deployment script don't compile the code but is just a simple xcopy statement, you need to either introduce csc to the script or implement a continuous integration system like TeamCity.
The issue you describe is already handled by subversion. When Clyde tries to commit his changes subversion will detect the conflict and offer him the possibility to merge his changes.
This is exactly the scenario that Subversion and other version control systems are designed to avoid. When Clyde checks in, he should get an "out-of-date" error and his commit should fail, thereby forcing him to update his working copy and get Jon's changes before he can commit his own.
Check out the SVN video tutorials from dime casts. These show you best practices like how to setup your project, and how to do the "check in dance" which will avoid the situation you ran into/
http://www.dimecasts.net/Casts/ByTag/SVN
I've used Subersion and .NET application together. Basically what we learned was that you should always do an update to your working copy before making a checkin. That way, any changes made by other developers will be brought down to your working copy and any merge conflicts will be quickly known to you. You can then fix the merge conflicts, checkin and continue to work. If your second developer then updates their working code, the first developers merged code will be brought down and the process will be repeated.
Hope this helps.
ignore the folders bin and obj, but we have bin and Bin.
use svn:ignore
[bB]in
[oO]bj
*.suo