I'm starting to use Symfony Flex to bootstrap my project and I realized that running composer install for the first time generates a file named symfony.lock for which I could find no documentation.
What does this file do? Should I keep it in my version control and deploy it or should I .gitignore it?
Yes, officially you must add it to the version control:
Flex keeps tracks of the recipes it installed in the symfony.lock file, which must be committed to your code repository.
https://symfony.com/doc/3.4/setup/flex#how-does-flex-work
Otherwise on staging or production stages it will be generated again by Flex, auto-configuring all installed packages with recipes and triggering bugs like this https://github.com/symfony/flex/issues/192
Related
I want to create an upgrade setup. I have an old setup with for example version 1.0.1.43 and my new setup will has version of 1.0.1.45
I have created a new basic MSI project in installshield. I set version to 1.0.1.45 I copied both product code and upgrade code of old setup into upgrade setup. I also added all of new files in setup that should be replaced with files of old setup. I selected all files and then right clicked on them and in properties checked always overwrite option. then in Media section I added a major upgrade with upgrade code of my old setup. then I build the setup.
when I run this setup it shows me that you have installed this application do you want to upgrade it or not? then I choose yes to upgrade. after installing this setup I figured it out that in add/or remove programs version of my application has changed to 1.0.1.45, that means it has been upgraded. but when I check files I see that none of new files has been replaced with new one.
Where am I wrong that this setup ignore all of my new files to replace? I want this setup find old path of old setup and after removing all files, add new files to that path?
thanks
As you are saying, you have created new MSI installer for upgrade. So in this case the component ID of components in which your files are present, got change. So you need to set values of Component ID with the component IDs of your installer 1.0.1.45. Or you need to create different components with the same target path.
Also you can validate your upgrade build 1.0.1.46 with the main build 1.0.1.45 with following steps.
Build Menu -> Validate -> Upgrade Validation Wizard
Then give path of your main installer (msi/exe) and your upgrade installer (msi/exe). And check what differences both builds are having.
I have an Ionic app running with the basics of Ionic and running it in the browser by doing ionic serve, but I want some new stuff and run it trough the grunt serve command, also has the feature for JSLint, I am already using this scss this: https://github.com/diegonetto/generator-ionic/ and I see that have everything I want, how do I install that in my project?
Take into account that my project is almost done, I have almost 85 % already done.
Is this the part I need to follow up:
Upgrading
Make sure you've committed (or backed up) your local changes and install the latest version of the generator via npm install -g generator-ionic, then go ahead and re-run yo ionic inside your project's directory.
The handsome devil is smart enough to figure out what files he is attempting to overwrite and prompts you to choose how you would like to proceed. Select Y for overwriting your Gruntfile.js and bower.json to stay up-to-date with the latest workflow goodies and front-end packages.
does this will bring some complications ? is there something else I need to know ?
I use the same generator and enjoy using it. With that said, I would not recommend starting to use a generator until you've made a complete backup of your project.
Even then, I'd recommend creating a brand new project using the generator then migrating your existing code into the newly generated project. While migrating, you should be modifying your code to match the generator conventions as you go. This gives you the most control and will make sure that you learn the conventions of the new project structure. Upgrading instructions are really meant for people who already use the generator and are just upgrading to a new version of the generator. They are not applicable to you.
Whenever we clone a site on a development machine, the PackageStates.php will be rewritten shortly after and the order of entries will be all over the place, resulting in tons of changes, even though nothing has actually changed logically.
This brings up the question, should the file actually be under version control?
We experimented with ignoring it, but then, when deploying on a new machine, the site will not know which extensions to load. Which suggests to me that it shouldn't be excluded from version control. But then how should the information, which extensions to load, be transferred?
You can include the PackageStates.php to your version control.
You also can exclude it from versioning and generate it automatically during deployment process. typo3-console has a command for this:
typo3cms install:generatepackagestates
In older TYPO3 versions < 9 LTS, you have the option to install extensions based on conditions like context, host, system you can use
$GLOBALS['TYPO3_CONF_VARS']['EXT']['runtimeActivatedPackages'] = array('extension_builder','devlog');
in your AdditionalConfiguration.php.
Article about this topic at typo3blogger.de
If you have a TYPO3 composer installation, PackageStates.php is automatically generated when running "composer install":
https://docs.typo3.org/p/helhum/typo3-console/6.5/en-us/CommandReference/InstallGeneratepackagestates.html
Generates and writes typo3conf/PackageStates.php file. Goal is to not have this file in version control, but generate it on composer install.
I've installed the latest AjaxControlToolkit and everything's working fine and dandy.
When I go to check-in my changes none of the ACT stuff is ticked for check-in but any pages I have edited have been ticked.
Is there a specific reason for this? Should I not check it in?
Possibly some quirk of your source control provider.
Personally, I like to include everything (non-standard) required to build the solution in SVN.
For AjaxControlToolkit, I use Nuget.exe, packages.config containing a line relating to a specific version of AjaxControlToolkit, and a pre-build event to automate downloading the correct version of the toolkit just before the build.
This way, you get to tie a specific revision of your work in source control to a specific version of the toolkit, without having to check binaries in to source control (bad practice).
I'm part of a development team that works on many CMS based projects, using systems like Joomla and Drupal.
In our development process, all of our code changes are managed inside of Git. At the end of a sprint, we create a DIFF that we can apply via patch to live site.
The problem is that most of the time, the changes include
Database Schema Changes
Database Data Changes
Source Code changes
Binary file changes (like images)
Git Diff handles Source Code changes beautifully. Binary files are only not included in the Diff except for reference to the fact that the files have changed.
Database Schema Changes and Database Data Changes are a mess.
I was wandering if anything like an unified patch system exists that could be used to deploy all of these changes in 1 patch.
So the question is, "Is there a system that can be used to deploy all of these changes in 1 shot?
Ideally, this system would allow to run dry-run like patch, but for all of the 4 data types.
Edit:
Thank you everyone for the feedback that you provided, it was a starting point for my research in this area.
Here is what I found so far:
It's difficult to deploy php based
applications using linux packaging
system because the changes to the
project happen iteratively rather
then as releases.
It would be possible to use dbconfig to deploy changes to a
project, but the problem is
generating mysql db diffs (schema
and data)
what really is missing for deployment of php based applications
is a deployment manager that would
be installed on the server and would
be the interface for deploying the
patches
I started a Google Wave on this topic and produced a lot of information as a result.
If anyone is interested in reading this wave, please let me know and I will add you.
For handling installation and upgrade of our application, we use the debian packaging system . ( .deb package )
Context :
We are making J2EE + Flex application. Shipping and administred throught a VPN.
So not so far from you.
Fresh install and upgrade for a version to another are made through puppet ( a system for automating system administration tasks : he install our .deb )
In the .deb we have
our compiled sourcecode
the schema of the database ( handled by [db-config][1] )
binary stuff
how to install throught apt all other application needed ( mysql, tomcat ... )
= All stuff for a fresh install
We also add the info to go from a version to another
the script for upgrading the database ( for each version )
new binary
new stuff to lauch at the machine start ( eg : some weeks ago we have add a activeMQ server )
=> Once the .deb is made correctly, we can install or upgrade seamless in one operation. ( it's made automatically, without any prompt ).
Theire is one .deb per realease, each .deb has a version number and a signature.
You can pick any of our .deb and make a fresh install or upgrade from the actual version to the version number he hold.
The .deb is in our continous integration system. ( we build a .deb each hour, like if we are about to realease a new version )
What are the benefit ?
Install / upgrade automaticcally, with confidence.
Rollback a version
run dry are natively supported
In your precise case
* Database Schema Changes
* Database Data Changes
* Source Code changes
* Binary file changes (like images)
Database => you will have to write migration script. One for each version. ( ex : 1.2-update.sql 1.3-update.sql )
Source code and binary => add them, say in witch version they have to be copied/use
Edit : i'm not sure about source code. We are doing that with compiled code...
Some links to start :
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Complete
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/index.fr.html#contents ( in french )
[1]: http://pwet.fr/man/linux/formats/dbconfig dbconfig
[1]: http://www.debian.org/doc/FAQ/ch-pkg_basics.en.html debian
I don't think you'll find a fail-safe mechanism.
I recommend that, when possible, you take into account compatibility with the current published source when making schema/data changes.
This way you can make a v. simple tool that runs database scripts committed to a particular svn location (you don't want diff on database changes, as if you need further modifications you need different statements).
With the above done, you can have a simple command that runs the database changes, then the binary & source code changes.
For database there is also the option of schema&data comparisons tools, these could be used to compare environments & make sure there isn't anything unexpected missing in the change scripts - could also generate the change scripts, but as I said you really want to make sure it won't break current source.
You can create a tool to do the migrations painlessly -- something similar to Peoplesoft's Patch Upgrade Assistant.
It is basically a standalone executable that reads an "Upgrade Template" and carries out tasks. The upgrade template declaratively describes the upgrade tasks or "steps". The steps could be - copy (for backing up or moving the precompiled objects like classes and othar binaries), database (for altering schema elements), SQL Scripts (for loading or transforming current data). The steps will have some predicate logic capable - if it is this, do this, else skip it and go to next etc.
The template is usually an XML file. It also provides for manual steps with instructions for manual actions. Each step also specifies if it is recoverable or not. It would also validate if the step has succeeded or not.
It may be possible to have a Open Source project around this requirement which is quite common.
You need to save git commit objects in local file and then import them into other repo/branch.