I have migration that transforms complex jsonb object into another jsonb object but with different structure and store it in new column existing_column_name_v2.
How to test that to make sure I did everything ok?
Here are my steps I am thinking right now:
Apply migrations up to the last one
Feed the data
Apply last migration
Run tests in language of choice and compare results
I am not sure how to execute just migrations I need with Flyway.
To migrate to a specific version, use flyway migrate target=<version> as described in the Flyway docs.
Related
Running typeorm migrations always creates the migrations and typeorm_metadata table. These tables keep track of migrations done for the particular schema. But, I'd like to execute some ddl commands with this migration facility. Is there a way to not generate them for a migration ?
Doesn't seem to be a logical way to do that, but, the way I got around this is by using the migrationsTableName, I changed it dynamically everytime using a word generator, so the net effect would be as if there was no migrations metadata at all. ;-)
I have a project that has a db first approach initially. However, I have difficulty managing to deployment it to the customers. Because it needs some db updates and I do this manually.
Is there any solution to turn over my DB first approach to the code first approach?
My project is developed in .net core and c# language and also my database firstly Oracle and also Postgre.
Thanks in advance.
You could probably:
create ordinary model classes out of the generated model classes
delete everything else related to the DbFirst approach
Create a code first migration based on the model classes mentioned above
Manually insert a row to the __efmigrationshistory table (in every database you use) with the name of you migration created above --> that way the first generated migration won't run again, as it shouldn't because your db schema is already created
I need to implement schema migration mechanism for PostgreSQL.
Just to remove ambiguity: with schema-migration I mean that I need upgrade my database structures to the latest version regardless of their current state on particular server instance.
For example in version one I created some tables, then in version two I renamed some columns and in version three I removed one table and created another one. I have multiple servers and on some of them I have version one on some version three etc.
My idea:
Generate hash for output produced by
pg_dump --schema-only
every time before I change my database schema. This will be a reliable way to identify database version in the future to which the patch should apply.
Contain a list of patches with the associated hashed to which they should apply.
When I need to upgrade my database I will run an application that will search for hash that corresponds to current database structure (by calculating hash of local database and comparing it with hash set that I have) and apply associated patch.
Repeat until next hash is not found.
Could you please point any weak sides of this approach?
Have you ever heard of https://pgmodeler.io ? At the company where I work we decided to go for this since it can perform schema diff even between local and remote. We are very satisfied with it.
Otherwise if you are more for a free solution, you could develop a migration tool which can be used to apply migrations you store in a single repo. Furthermore this tool could rely on a migration table you keep in a separate schema so that your DB(s) will always know which migrations were applied or not.
The beauty of this approach is that migrations can both be about a schema change and data changes.
I hope this can give you some ideas.
I am working on a system that currently has a number of environments (test, stage, live, etc) each with their own database. So far these databases have been kept in sync by running the same update scripts on each of them.
We are now moving to using EF6 code first migrations, and would also like to start writing some automated system tests using LocalDB.
I've found https://msdn.microsoft.com/pt-pt/data/dn579398 which describes two options for adding an initial migration.
The first method creates an empty initial migration which will work great for the existing environments but won't help with creating LocalDBs for testing.
The second method creates a migration to bring up the whole database from scratch (minus things EF doesn't care about such as sprocs and views). This would be acceptable for testing, but not good for actually recreating a databse. It also requires you to manually comment out the Up method, run the migration on all existing databases, and then put the Up method back. As it will take a while to get the migration through all the environments I'm not keen on this. It also violates the one of the principles of migrations which is that they shouldn't be edited once they've been released.
Having some kind of conditionality in migrations would solve my problem (e.g. if(tableExists("A_table_in_the_existing_database") return;) but there doesn't seem to be anything like that available.
The best I've come up with is to dump the existing database schema from SQL server to a file (which has the advantage of preserving sprocs, views, etc) and then use option 2 above, except instead of using the generated Up method I'll run the SQL file.
However, this still has the drawbacks of option 2 mentioned above, so I'd be very happy to learn of a better way of handling this situation.
Edit:
Would this work? Run the commented out initial migration on one database, then dumping out the __MigrationHistory table and inserting it into the other databases? That way I wouldn't have to wait for the migration to make it through all the environments before I could safely uncomment it.
EF 6.1.2 has support for running SQL embedded as a resource within the assembly containing the migrations using the SqlResource method.
I think I'd go with scripting out your existing schema and using an initial migration that executes SqlResource as its Up. If all it's doing is a bunch of IF EXISTS then it shouldn't take too long to run. Otherwise scripting out __MigrationHistory will also work if you just want to run it once locally and apply to all your other databases by hand.
I've started looking into Entity Framework migrations on 4.3.1. Have a few questions:
What's preferred during development? Why should I not just drop and recreate my
database always and then reseed. If I use code first migrations, can
I choose to seed my db initially and then add a seed method to each
migration to only add in new data? If i use automatic migrations, is
it possible to do something similar? i.e. seed initially and then
seed as required?
What is the benefit of using migrations during development? I only
actually need migrations when moving to production. So, I need to
create my initial script and then scripts for each migration, so
would it be possible to only use migrations once i want to move to
production and at that point create an initial script and maintain a
migration history from that point onwards?
Well, in our case, we started to use Migrations because in our company, devs don't have the necessary rights to create a DB, which lead to the amusing scenario where I dropped the DB a couple of times and had to ask the db admin to recreate it each time...
In my opinion, it seems easier to incrementally grow your DB, rather than having to recreate it each time. If I were to have to drop and recreate our DB every time a property is added, deleted or changed, I'd never see the end of it.
I've not yet seen a possibility for incremental seeds, unless perhaps if you create manual migration files.
Migrations has the possibility to go to a specific version (either forwards or backwards) and it is possible to generate an SQL script from a migration.
So basically, you don't have to create a migration SQL script by hand anymore, you can get Migrations to do it for you.