The EF7 migration add command (to date, beta5) compares the model classes defined in the DbContext against the current model snapshot, creates a new migration class, and updates the model snapshot.
I need to modify the migration to make it generate different DDL SQL. As an example, EF7 uses sequences for SQL Server auto-increment values, and I would like it to use identity. However it could be any other reason. The migration remove command would physically delete the migration files and revert the model snapshot, so it's useless in this case.
There are 3 files that contain related code that look like they need to be edited:
The primary migration class: The Up and Down methods should be modified.
The DbContextModelSnapshot file contains Annotations that need to be modified
The secondary migration partial class: The badly named [migration].Designer.cs file also contains a model snapshot for the migration. I'm assuming this snapshot needs to match the model snapshot in item 2, but am not certain. The only information I have about the purpose of it is from Brice's blog , which says "It’s there in case you or a provider need to inspect the model for additional information during a migration."
Specific questions:
Do the two model snapshots need to be kept in sync in order to correctly perform migrations?
Is modifying 3 separate files the only way to edit the migration? (Although depending on the changes, the model snapshots may not have to be touched in some cases.)
Is there some EF command that would regenerate just the model snapshots, but not the migration methods?
Specific answers:
Do the two model snapshots need to be kept in sync in order to correctly perform migrations?
No, the snapshot in the migration is a last resort for provider writers. For example, SQLite can't rename columns so it could use migration's model snapshot to do a table rebuild for this operation. 99% of the time, it won't ever be used.
Is modifying 3 separate files the only way to edit the migration?
Most of the time, you should only ever edit the main migration file. In rare cases, you may need to edit the model snapshot if you're working in a team environment and you encounter a merge conflict. You can ignore the designer file; it just captures some metadata about the migration.
You may not have to edit anything if you configure your model correctly. For example, to use identity instead of sequences, override DbContext.OnModelCreating() and add modelBuilder.ForSqlServer().UseIdentity().
Is there some EF command that would regenerate just the model snapshots, but not the migration methods?
No, it shouldn't be needed since you almost never edit these files.
Related
I have developed a application with Grails earlier.Now as per new requirement there is a need to modify the existing domain classes as well as adding a new classes and changing / establishing new relationship between the as well.
Now the new requirement has been implemented and I am going to deploy to production environment. however, the DBA want a script change the production database DDL. DBA is not allowing the auto create / update of database schema while bootstrapping the application.
I know how to export DDL of for creating tables. but that script will drop tables which means all data will be lost.
But I don't know how to export DDL for DDL-update (no drop tables/recreate tables). Anybody has good suggestion ?
You can not expect the existing data to get stored according to the new database schema as is.
For example, you have a table Sample with the contactNumber field with the nullable : true constraint in your existing schema and in your new schema this constraint has been changed to nullable : true & unique : true.
In such cases database will fail to keep the existing data intact or adapt to new schema.
To preserve the existing data, you may have to go through a tedious process like -
Take backup of the existing database.
Make a note of the modification you have made to the existing Domain classes.
Find out which modifications may lead to failure / data loss.
Drop the earlier database schema & Deploy the new application and let it create the database schema.
Write a script or utility which will process & store the data from database backup according to new database schema.Make sure the utility you have written has the capalibility to handle the modification(constraint, field added, field removed) done to the database schema.
Are migrations instructions that change a model? Will I make several migrations, or will there be one migration per table? For instance, let's say if I want to change "username" to "admin_username". Does this call for a migration? Then, let's say I decide I want to add "age". Do I have to make a new migration, or do I just add it to the aforementioned migration?
You can make the quantity of migrations you want. My advise, try to plan your project and see how your model needs to be in order to avoid migrations. The migration feature is a great way to add, delete, rename fields to your model among other things.
If you need to change the username of the model User then you run rails g migration renameUsernameInUsers and add the necessary code to change the name of that field in you recently created migration file.
If some minutes later you realise that you also need to add a field you can make a new migration with your needs and add a field or add multiple fields in just one migration.
Remember, in order to apply your migrations you need to run rake db:migrate. If you modify the code in your migration files already migrated with this command, it will not have effect in your model. You will need a new migration.
In conclusion, you can(will) make many migrations for a model.
To go further on this topic you can see this official page for migrations in rails.
I'm a junior Rails developer and at work we faced the following problem:
Needed to update the value of a column only for one record.
What we did is creating a migration like this:
class DisableAccessForUser < ActiveRecord::Migration
def change
User.where(name: "User").first.update_column(:access, false)
end
end
Are migrations only for schema changes?
What other solutions do you suggest?
PS: I can only change it with code. No access to console.
The short version is, since migrations are only for schema changes, you wouldn't want to use them to change actual data in the database.
The main issue is that your data-manipulating migration(s) might be ignored by other developers if they load the DB structuring using either rake db:schema:load or rake db:reset. Both of which merely load the latest version of the structure using the schema.rb file and do not touch the migrations.
As Nikita Singh also noted in the comments, I too would say the best method of changing row data is to implement a simple rake task that can be run as needed, independent of the migration structure. Or, for a first time installation, the seed.rb file is perfect to load initial system data.
Hope that rambling helps.
Update
Found some documentation in some "official" sources:
Rails Guide for Migrations - Using Models in your Migrations. This section gives a description of a scenario in which data-manipulation in the migration files can cause problems for other developers.
Rails Guide for Migrations - Migrations and Seed Data. Same document as above, doesn't really explain why it is bad to put seed or data manipulation in the migration, merely says to put all that in the seed.rd file.
This SO answer. This person basically says the same thing I wrote above, except they provide a quote from the book Agile Web Development with Rails (3rd edition), partially written by David Heinemeier Hansson, creator of Rails. I won't copy the quote, as you can read it in that post, but I believe it gives you a better idea of why seed or data manipulation in migrations might be considered a bad practice.
Migrations are fine for schema changes. But when you work on much collaborated projects like pulling code everyday from lot of developers.
Chances are you might miss some migrations(Value update migrations..No problem for schema changes) Because migrations depends on the timestamps.
So what we do is create a rake task in a single namespace to update some table values( Be careful it does not overwrites)
And invoke all the rake task in that NameSpace whenever we update the code from Git.
Making data changes using classes in migrations is dangerous because it's not terribly future proof. Changes to the class can easily break the migration in the future.
For example, let's imagine you were to add a new column to user (sample_group) and access that column in a Rails lifecycle callback that executes on object load (e.g. after_initialize). That would break this migration. If you weren't skipping callbacks and validations on save (by using update_column) there'd be even more ways to break this migration going forward.
When I want to make data changes in migrations I typically fall back to SQL. One can execute any SQL statement in a migration by using the execute() method. The exact SQL to use depends on the database in use, but you should be able to come up with a db appropriate query. For example in MySQL I believe the following should work:
execute("UPDATE users SET access = 0 WHERE id IN (select id from users order by id limit 1);")
This is far more future proof.
There is nothing wrong with using a migration to migrate the data in your database, in the right situation, if you do it right.
There are two related things you should avoid in your migrations (as many have mentioned), neither of which preclude migrating data:
It's not safe to use your models in your migrations. The code in the User model might change, and nobody is going to update your migration when that happens, so if some co-worker takes a vacation for 3 months, comes back, and tries to run all the migrations that happened while she was gone, but somebody renamed the User model in the mean time, your migration will be broken, and prevent her from catching up. This just means you have to use SQL, or (if you are determined to keep even your migrations implementation-agnostic) include an independent copy of an ActiveRecord model directly in your migration file (nested under the migration class).
It also doesn't make sense to use migrations for seed data, which is, specifically, data that is to be used to populate a new database when someone sets up the app for the first time so the app will run (or will have the data one would expect in a brand new instance of the app). You can't use migrations for this because you don't run migrations when setting up your database for the first time, you run db:schema:load. Hence the special file for maintaining seed data: seeds.rb. This just means that if you do need to add data in a migration (in order to get production and everyone's dev data up to speed), and it qualifies as seed data (necessary for the app to run), you need to add it to seeds.rb too!
Neither of these, however, mean that you shouldn't use migrations to migrate the data in existing databases. That is what they are for. You should use them!
A migrations is simply a structured way to make database changes, both schema and data.
In my opinion there are situations in which using migrations for data changes is legitimate.
For example:
If you are holding data which is mostly constant in your database but changes annually, it is fine to make a migration each year to update it. For example, if you list the teams in a soccer league a migration would be a good way to update the current teams in each year.
If you want to mass-alter an attribute of a large table. For example if you had a slug column in your user and the name "some user" would be translated to the slug "some_user" and now you want to change it to "some.user". This is something I'd do with a migration.
Having said that, I wouldn't use a migration to change a single user attribute. If this is something which happens occasionally you should make a dashboard which will allow you to edit this data in the future. Otherwise a rake task may be a good option.
This question is old and I think rails approach changed over time here. Based on https://edgeguides.rubyonrails.org/active_record_migrations.html#migrations-and-seed-data it's OK to feed new columns with data here. To be more precise your migration code should contain also "down" block:
class DisableAccessForUser < ActiveRecord::Migration
def up
User.where(name: "User").first.update_column(:access, false)
end
def down
User.where(name: "User").first.update_column(:access, true)
end
end
If you use seeds.rb to pre-fill data, don't forget to include new column value there, too:
User.find_or_create_by(id: 0, name: 'User', access: false)
If I remember correctly, changing particular records may work, but I'm not sure about that.
In any case, it isn't a good practice, migrations should be user for schema changes only.
For updating one record I would use console. Just type 'rails console' in terminal and input code to change attributes.
I've been reading about Rails Migrations to help me start building a rails project.
I'm a bit confused on the generation of the files in db/migrate.
The way I've been designing my application is by starting with the models... outlining all of the objects that I'm going to have in the system as best I can. I would like to generate the migration files FROM these models automatically with the rails migration generator.
Yes, I know "creating migrations manually is easy." And I know I could do it manually, but what I don't understand is why the tool is separated from the pre-created models.
Based on my understanding from the article and other migration questions on SO, I can generate a migration like so:
rails generate migration SomeObj field:string some_other_field:integer
What I don't get is why I need to pass in the fields when my model already exists for SomeObj? Couldn't Rails detect it from the some_obj.rb and create the migration from there?
Also, when I have a more complex model, with has_many, belongs_to, and has_to_and_belongs_to_many relationships, it would be really nice if it autocreated the JOIN tables and fields with the correct names (e.g. foreign_obj_id, foreign_obj_ids)
In a previous project I didn't have to deal with migrations because I used Mongo+Mongoid - and collections were automatically generated due to the nature of how Mongo works (collections that doesn't exist get automatically created upon inserting or updating). Now with this Rails app I'm using Postgres (but I'm sure the same thing would happen with MySQL or any other relational database).
Anyway, is there no helper for this kind of thing? Do I have to create all these migrations manually?
You've got this backwards. You need to build your migrations first, and your models second. Migrations advance the state of the database. Your models reflect the current state of the database. There is not a 1-to-1 mapping of models to migrations.
I would like to generate the migration files FROM these models automatically with the rails migration generator.
Can't be done.
You use rails generate migration to generate the migration, which, almost as a side-effect, generates a stub model file. You cannot use your existing model file to generate the model's migration, because the model doesn't contain any information about the actual columns that make up the model. Rails would have to extract and imply all the necessary information from your associations/validations, and even then it would get most of the columns wrong.
Also, when I have a more complex model,... it would be really nice if it autocreated the JOIN tables and fields with the correct names
Again, you can't. You're responsible for defining your database schema, and the way you do so is by building migrations. You can do so manually, or via rails generate, but the process you should be following is building your migrations first, and your models second.
By way of example, here is a complete model, ready for production:
class MyModel < ActiveRecord::Base
end
That model definition might wrap a table that contains 10 columns or 1000 columns; you (and Rails) have absolutely no way of knowing based on the model definition.
Here's another model, which contains at least one column, but again, you have no way of knowing what kind of column:
class MyModel < ActiveRecord::Base
validates :code, presence: true, uniqueness: true
end
Is code a string or a number? Should there be an index on the column? There is absolutely no way of knowing.
Yesterday i was absolutely sertain that all migrations data for EF placed in classes, placed in my solution as nested from DbMigration. But today i was dig a slightly deeper(just try to fallback to old migration with enable data loss not with nu-get and visual studio, but with code())
DbMigrator fg = new DbMigrator(new Settings() { AutomaticDataLossEnabled = true});
fg.Update("MigrationName");
And get exception, smth like "string should be truncated", those means that migrator tried to update column from big to small MaxLength attribute. So, i had excluded migration that caused this update and move this changes to migration, those create tables. The error still was occured. I got to intellitrace and it said that those(deleted) migration still was called. Looking to requests told me things like this:
SELECT [Extent1].[MigrationId] AS [MigrationId] FROM [dbo].[__MigrationHistory] AS [Extent1]
Looking to a table __MigrationsHistory and get my deleted migration there with field model that contains crypted data(don't decrypt this yet) . I was realy shocked. Does this means that all code, have written in classes is just the fake and really executed code placed here? And does anyone know, how to work with this table, register projections of migration classes to it etc. Or the once way to work with migrations is nu-get console?
I am not fully sure what your primary question is, so I will first try to answer last part about __MigrationHistory table.
Code in classes is not fake, your code in classes is compiled and run.
This table, however, really contains your database model, but it is not encrypted, it is compressed. The reason why Migrations API needs to store your model, is to be able to compare it against your current actual model and track changes for you (for example when you add a new property it will be able to tell what property you added and to perform automatic db migration).
In previous version of EF there was an EdmMetadata table where hash of your model was stored, and EF was able to detect if you made some changes to model by comparing stored and current model hash value. New version when migrations are enabled stores entire model as compressed blob, so it can do diff between the model that was used to create database and current model you are using, and make automatic migrations accordingly.
You should not work directly with this table, it is automatically populated by migrations API, but nuget console is not the only way to do migrations, you can check this resource for some insights how to do it from code.
Now, regarding your question from question title (where they are stored?), migrations are stored in code, in a class inheriting from DbMigration class that migrations API creates for you when you do Add-Migration command in nuget console. When you perform an migration (Update-Database), either from nuget package manager console or from code, API will compare your current model with versions in __MigrationsHistory to find initial version (if you have not specified it) and perform all migrations in between initial and target version (if not specified otherwise target is latest version).
I'm not really clear how you did exclude your migration that causes problems, as you need to migrate your database to version before that migration, and then delete and recreate all subsequent migrations from there.
Maybe you could solve your fallback to old version problem by implementing public override void Down() method in your migration that causes problems when trying to rollback? This method can be used to execute code which performs inverse any operations for migration.
Not directly related to question but worth mentioning, there is also pretty detailed tutorial here for EF CF.