I have an existing application developed in django 1.4. I want it to upgrade to django 1.7.
I can make the changes if some modules are deprecated since i don't need the backward compatibility. For this i need more information on which part of my application needs to be modified. So a testing tool that scans my application, and tells what needs to modified would be much better.
Is there any tools as such? If so, please guide me through it.
Thanks.
----Edit----
There is no such software available :(
Read thru the release notes and change your code if necessary.
{% url viewname %}
in 1.4 has become since 1.5
{% url 'viewname' %}
And no need for south application since its built in now since 1.7
And "commit_on_success()" has become "atomic()" since 1.5 i think.
I dont think, there is a tool which upgrades your code for you. I would say, just upgrade your django, run your lokal page and fix all deprecation/old-code errors.. this is how i find out what has been changed ;)
Related
I'm planning to move my PHP project from PHP 5.6 to PHP 7.2. I wanted to use phan\phan to that end but it checks every programming mistakes under the sun.
Could someone show me how to just run the backward_compatibility_checks filter (or suggest some other actively maintained/non-deprecated tools to do this)
Thanks in advance
I'm wondering if it makes sense to use the Symfony 4 file structure (as described in Fabian's post) for projects running Symfony 3.3 and 3.4?
The Architecture page in the documentation for 3.3, 3.4 and 4.0 all show the version 3.* directory structure so I'm not sure where the canonical information is and thus I'm not 100% sure it's either a good idea nor what the "final" decision is.
Yes, it is good idea – if you plan to start using Symfony Flex (the next big thing in Symfony world), the directory structure used Symfony 4 is required. Last version of Symfony Standard Edition will be 3.4, so if you want your application to keep up to date, it's better choice to start use that structure now, than moving and review tens (or hundreds) of files later.
Documentation is not yet updated – current master version (4.0) is just clone of 3.4.
I have tried Shop Module 2.3-SNAPSHOT with Magnolia CMS 5.4, I have noticed UI components are not same used in Shop module and Magnolia CMS 5.4. Once I installed shop module /travel page does not work. Does anyone knows a workaround or better version of Shop module work smoothly with Magnnolia CMS 5.4 ?
2.3 version has quite few changes (hence the new major version number) and afaik demo have not been updated yet. So either you use it w/o demo (since it's snapshot no guarantee that nothing else is broken) or you stick to version 2.2 that is released and there's number of installations with that version and Magnolia 5.4.x.
Alternatively, you figure out what is broken in demo and provide patches for the issue. This is community driven module after all.
HTH,
Jan
Using Django 1.7
django-cms 3.0.9
djangocms-text-ckeditor 2.4.3
manage.py migrate djangocms_text_ckeditor gives an improperly configured error:
https://gist.github.com/e7c754d329eb22126b11
http://django-cms.readthedocs.org/en/latest/upgrade/3.0.html - suggests there is work to do, but doesn't indicate what needs to be done to get it to work.
The gist is not accessible.
Anyway, have you had a loot at http://django-cms.readthedocs.org/en/latest/upgrade/3.0.6.html#django-1-7-support and https://github.com/divio/djangocms-text-ckeditor#installation?
You must customize some settings to setup django CMS 3.0.x on Django 1.7
I commented out all the CMS applications. got everything else working correctly. And then added the applications back. It began working correctly after that. No setting problem, no application order problem. Weird.
When I was upgrding my webite from drupal 4.7 to 5.2, I am facing an issue -
Fatal error: Call to undefined function node_get_base() in ../question.module.
Can any one help me to solve it...
Thanks in advance
The root of your problem is that you have some code in the file question.module calling a deprecated function (node_get_base()). Drupal 5.2 does not implement anymore that function so you get the error...
I assume that the question.module you are using is this one, which does exist for Drupal 5 series. If I am right, then I suspect you have missed to follow the upgrade instructions for updating your site which state:
5) Disable all custom and contributed modules.
[..]
11) Ensure that the versions of all custom and contributed modules match the new Drupal version to which you have updated. For a major update, such as from 5.x to 6.x, modules from previous versions will not be compatible and updated versions will be required.
12) Re-enable custom and contributed modules and re-run update.php to update custom and contributed database tables.
These instructions are in the UPGRADE.txt file in the Drupal root folder.
Hope this helps!
When upgrading Drupal to a new release, you more or less in some respects have to build the site over again. The thing is, that because the Drupal API changes to much in the new releases, each module will need to be replaced with a new one. In most cases this is just a matter of downloading a new version of the module and running update.php.
You should, however, go through each of your modules and find out what's needed to make the upgrade. Sometimes the upgrade path can be a bit tricky and you need a few attempts to get it right without corrupting any data in the process.
Another thing is, that when upgrading, going for the drupal 5 version of the same module might not always be the best choice. Especially when talking about Drupal 5, there are a lot of more or less unmaintained modules. So the best choice might be to find a different module that can do what you want, or even fulfill more of your needs.
It's always a hard decision and your theme will also need to be upgraded to Drupal 5. In short there is a lot of work evolved when doing a major upgrade. Most of it, is making some good choices about, which modules to use and how to migrate your data.
All that aside, following the upgrade guide in UPGRADE.txt like mac suggests is a very good place to start, and doing all of this leg work, would probably have avoided all this.