I'm working on deploying my first Rails application right now, and somewhere along the way, I botched a migration. When I try to push my application to the production server and run rake db:migrate, it fails somewhere with an error.
Now, I am way too lazy to work through my migrations individually to find out what went wrong, so I'm trying to avoid doing that. Given that my current development database works just fine, is there a way to "flatten" the current schema into a single, comprehensive migration?
I understand that this is sloppy, and I understand that I likely did a dumb thing to break the migration chain in the first place. (I probably edited the database schema directly somewhere, which I now understand is a no-no.) This is a pretty small project though, and I'm essentially the only developer involved, so I'm comfortable sweeping this issue under the rug if possible.
Is there a way to do that?
Thanks for lending your expertise.
This is what the db/schema.rb file is for. If you've only got structural changes in your migrations you will be able to run rake db:schema:load rather than running rake db:migrate to get the absolute structure for your tables.
If you edited the schema directly you will need to run:
rake db:schema:dump
This will take whatever is in the database and create a schema.rb file. Then you can run rake db:schema:load anytime you want. However it will mean that your migrations are still bad. You could delete all of them and recreate them from the schema.rb file.
Related
I've been having a problem which doesn't seem uncommon (I've read a lot of stack overflow pages in the last 2 days) but every solution I've read hasn't worked for me.
I've been following this video tutorial
At 6:42 the tutor shows the tables in postgresql and mine don't show up.
When I try rake db:migrate the files migrate no problem. rake doesn't throw up any errors, the relevant .rb files are created in the models folder, my schema.rb looks right. It seems postgresql just isn't reading my schema file.
My problem sounds identical to
rake db:migrate doesn't seem to work in production
However typing rake db:migrate RAILS_ENV=production doesn't work. (I've tried this a few times after other rake commands like rake db:rollback STEP=3 in the past few days because I was paranoid it was the solution, this person on ruby forum, has the same problem and is offered the same answer).
This is my first attempt at programming anything and I'm loving the tutorial (and the learning curve this problem has turned out to be) Asking here is pretty much my last resort because I've tried everything I can understand online as a possible solution so please help me! Thanks a lot in advance
There is quite a bit of confusion going on here:
Migrations
Migrations are a convenient way to alter your database schema over
time in a consistent and easy way. They use a Ruby DSL so that you
don't have to write SQL by hand, allowing your schema and changes to
be database independent.
Postgres does not read your schema file or migrations - rather migrations run SQL queries against your database. In this case a CREATE TABLE ... query will be run when the migration is run.
Migrations are basically a more maintainable and sane way of doing what was classically done by opening a DB console and running SQL queries.
config/schema.rb is not actually used by the database or ActiveRecord - rather its created when you run migrations as a snapshot of what the database schema should look like. Its just a developer convenience. ActiveRecord gets its mappings by querying the database schema.
Migrations and generators
Migrations do not create model files either - those are generators such as:
rails g model Dude abides:boolean
Which creates a CreateDudes migration and a model at app/models/dude.rb.
In fact migrations are just concerned about altering the DB schema and don't care if the model file exists or not - the models is not actually used until you query the database for records.
ENV vars
RAILS_ENV=production sets a environmental variable.
rake db:migrate RAILS_ENV=test
Is the documented way to run a migration in a different environment. Some obscure shells require the ENV var to prefix the command.
However - if you are running a production server you should set the RAILS_ENV env var permanently - not on invocation! This prevents embarrassing misstakes when someone expected you to have configured the server properly and just ran rails s when restarting the server. See the documentation for your server OS on how to set env vars.
If you are still running the migration and do not see the expected results you most likely have not configured config/database.yml properly - the migrations are running. But not against the database you would expect.
http://guides.rubyonrails.org/active_record_migrations.html
In other words I'd like to know the best way to make sure that self.down actually rolls back self.up before running the migration in question.
What can I do if I need to rollback a migration but self.down doesn't serve the purpose?
Which is the best practice when dealing with potentially destructive migrations?
Just a database backup?
Thanks,
Duccio.
You should be developing on a development database which should not contain live data. Therefore it should not matter if the data is destroyed as you can easily generate it again?
A database backup might be appropriate if you find yourself in a situation where your development data is important but not ideal.
Typically migrations should contain only schema changes. In that case it should be very safe & easy to run the migrations in the dev/test environment. If something goes wrong you can alway re-create the database and populate it with some test data. But if you have some data related migrations to be tested, things might go wrong when you actually run them on production.
In that case as you mentioned database backup is what you should rely on. Come with a proper & quick restore mechanism before deploying.
To make sure the migrations behave as you want you should experiment in your development environment.
Run the command
rake -T
to show you the available tasks such as
rake db:migrate
or
rake db:rollback
Each migration runs inside a transaction. Keep that in mind. That means that if something would go wrong inside a single migration, the migration is rolled back (and if there are any following they are not executed).
To test migrations, be it up or down I insert a lot of puts-statements, to check everything has worked has supposed to, and then in my last line I raise an exception. This will make rails think the migration has failed, and it will rollback the operation (as if it never happened).
When I am sure everything works as it should, I remove the raise line and let the migration really work.
In your case, you would test with the raise, remove the raise and NOT run it again I assume :)
Hope this helps.
Very simple question here - if migrations can get slow and cumbersome as an app gets more complex and if we have the much cleaner rake db:schema:load to call instead, why do migrations exist at all?
If the answer to the above is that migrations are used for version control (a stepwise record of changes to the database), then as an app gets more complex and rake db:schema:load is used more instead, do they continue to maintain their primary function?
Caution:
From the answers to this question: rake db:schema:load will delete data on a production server so be careful when using it.
Migrations provide forward and backward step changes to the database. In a production environment, incremental changes must be made to the database during deploys: migrations provide this functionality with a rollback failsafe. If you run rake db:schema:load on a production server, you'll end up deleting all your production data. This is a dangerous habit to get into.
That being said, I believe it is a decent practice to occasionally "collapse" migrations. This entails deleting old migrations, replacing them with a single migration (very similar to your schema.rb file) and updating the schema_migrations table to reflect this change. Be very careful when doing this! You can easily delete your production data if you aren't careful.
As a side note, I strongly believe that you should never put data creation in the migration files. The seed.rb file can be used for this, or custom rake or deploy tasks. Putting this into migration files mixes your database schema specification with your data specification and can lead to conflicts when running migration files.
Just stumbled across this post, that was long ago and didn't see the answer I was expecting.
rake db:schema:load is great for the first time you put a system in production. After that you should run migrations normally.
This also helps you cleaning your migrations whenever you like, since the schema has all the information to put other machines in production even when you cleaned up your migrations.
Migrations lets you add data to the db too. but db:schema:load only loads the schema .
Because migrations can be rolled back, and provide additional functionality. For example, if you need to modify some data as part of a schema change then you'll need to do that as a migration.
As a user of other ORM's, it always seemed strange to me that Rails didn't have a 'sync and update' feature. ie, by using the schema file (which represents the entire, up-to-date schema), go through the existing DB structure and add/remove tables, columns, indexes as required.
To me this would be a lot more robust, even if possibly a little slower.
I have already posted as a comment, but feels it is better to put the comments of the db/schema.rb file here:
# Note that this schema.rb definition is the authoritative source for your
# database schema. If you need to create the application database on another
# system, you should be using db:schema:load, not running all the migrations
# from scratch. The latter is a flawed and unsustainable approach (the more migrations
# you'll amass, the slower it'll run and the greater likelihood for issues).
#
# It's strongly recommended that you check this file into your version control system.
Actually, my experience is that it is better to put the migration files in git and not the schema.rb file...
rake db:migrate setup the tables in the database. When you run the migration command, it will look in db/migrate/ for any ruby files and execute them starting with the oldest. There is a timestamp at the beginning of each migration filename.
Unlike rake db:migrate that runs migrations that have not run yet, rake db:schema:load loads the schema that is already generated in db/schema.rbinto the database.
You can find out more about rake database commands here.
So schema:load takes the currently configured schema, derives the associated queries to match, and runs them all in one go. It's kind of a one-and-done situation. As you've seen, migrations make changes step-by-step. Loading the schema might make sense when working on a project locally, especially early in the lifetime of a project. But if we were to drop and recreate the production DB each time we do a deployment, we would lose production data each time. That's a no-go. So that's why we use migrations to make the required changes to the existing DB.
So. The deeper into a project you get, the more migrations you'll get stacked up as you make more changes to the DB. And with each migration, those migrations become more and more the source of truth of what's on production - what matters isn't what's in the schema, but what migrations have been run in production. The difference is effectively moot if we have both in sync. But as soon as one goes of out date from the other, you start to have discrepancies. Ideally this would not happen, but we live in the real world, and stuff happens. And if you're using schema:load to set up your DB locally, you might not be getting the actual state of the DB, as it is reflected via the migration history on production.
Currently i'm using this:
edit creation migrate
rake db:drop
rake db:migrate
rake db:seed
but I often can see making migrations for every added or edited column and so on.
I think my way is better because its much cleaner and faster to migrate to production environment (one sql for one table). Are there any disadvantages of using my method?
What do you think?
EDIT:
Just to be clear: i'm talking about stage BEFORE any production, when I'm coding on my own PC and even don't think about production yet.
Incremental migrations are definitely needed in production, where you can't get away with dropping entire databases. Using them in development as well helps you to ensure that they're correct.
Understand what you are trying to achieve here but how you're going about it is very wrong.
Your development environment should be as close to your production environment as possible.
Could run into allsorts of problems.
What happens when you need to replicate the production environment on dev?
What happens when you "forget" to add/take-away something on prod that you have done using a migration that is lost?
For dev, maybe a better command would be rake db:rolback, which rolls back the previous migration if you need to edit it for typo or something.
Just out of curosity - why not use rake db:reset instead of the three individual rake tasks?
I have been running a big Rails application for over 2 years and, day by day, my ActiveRecord migration folder has been growing up to over 150 files.
There are very old models, no longer available in the application, still referenced in the migrations. I was thinking to remove them.
What do you think? Do you usually purge old migrations from your codebase?
The Rails 4 Way page 177:
Sebastian says...
A little-known fact is that you can remove old migration files (while
still keeping newer ones) to keep the db/migrate folder to a
manageable size. You can move the older migrations to a
db/archived_migrations folder or something like that. Once you do trim
the size of your migrations folder, use the rake db:reset task to
(re-)create your database from db/schema.rb and load the seeds into
your current environment.
Once I hit a major site release, I'll roll the migrations into one and start fresh. I feel dirty once the migration version numbers get up around 75.
I occasionally purge all migrations, which have already been applied in production and I see at least 2 reasons for this:
More manageable folder: it is easier to spot a new migration.
Cleaner text search results: global text search within a project does not lead to tons of useless matches because of some 3-year-old migration when someone added or removed some column which anyway does not exist anymore.
They are relatively small, so I would choose to keep them, just for the record.
You should write your migrations without referencing models, or other parts of application, because they'll come back to you haunting ;)
Check out these guidelines:
http://guides.rubyonrails.org/migrations.html#using-models-in-your-migrations
Personally I like to keep things tidy in the migrations files. I think once you have pushed all your changes into prod you should really look at archiving the migrations. The only difficulty I have faced with this is that when Travis runs it runs a db:migrate, so these are the steps I have used:
Move historic migrations from /db/migrate/ to /db/archive/release-x.y/
Create a new migration file manually using the version number from the last run migration in the /db/archive/release-x.y directory and change the description to something like from_previous_version. Using the old version number means that it won't run on your prod machine and mess up.
Copy the schema.rb contents from inside the ActiveRecord::Schema.define(version: 20141010044951) do section and paste into the change method of your from_previous_version changelog
Check all that in and Robert should be your parent's brother.
The only other consideration would be if your migrations create any data (my test scenarios contain all their own data so I don't have this issue)
Why? Unless there is some kind of problem with disk space, I don't see a good reason for deleting them. I guess if you are absolutely certain that you are never going to roll back anything ever again, than you can. However, it seems like saving a few KB of disk space to do this wouldn't be worth it. Also, if you just want to delete the migrations that refer to old models, you have to look through them all by hand to make sure you don't delete anything that is still used in your app. Lots of effort for little gain, to me.
See http://edgeguides.rubyonrails.org/active_record_migrations.html#schema-dumping-and-you
Migrations are not a representation of the database: either structure.sql or schema.rb is. Migrations are also not a good place for setting/initializing data. db/seeds or a rake task are better for that kind of task.
So what are migrations? In my opinion they are instructions for how to change the database schema - either forwards or backwards (via a rollback). Unless there is a problem, they should be run only in the following cases:
On my local development machine as a way to test the migration itself and write the schema/structure file.
On colleague developer machines as a way to change the schema without dropping the database.
On production machines as a way to change the schema without dropping the database.
Once run they should be irrelevant. Of course mistakes happen, so you definitely want to keep migrations around for a few months in case you need to rollback.
CI environments do not ever need to run migrations. It slows down your CI environment and is error prone (just like the Rails guide says). Since your test environments only have ephemeral data, you should instead be using rake db:setup, which will load from the schema.rb/structure.sql and completely ignore your migration files.
If you're using source control, there is no benefit in keeping old migrations around; they are part of the source history. It might make sense to put them in an archive folder if that's your cup of coffee.
With that all being said, I strongly think it makes sense to purge old migrations, for the following reasons:
They could contain code that is so old it will no longer run (like if you removed a model). This creates a trap for other developers who want to run rake db:migrate.
They will slow down grep-like tasks and are irrelevant past a certain age.
Why are they irrelevant? Once more for two reasons: the history is stored in your source control and the actual database structure is stored in structure.sql/schema.rb. My rule of thumb is that migrations older than about 12 months are completely irrelevant. I delete them. If there were some reason why I wanted to rollback a migration older than that I'm confident that the database has changed enough in that time to warrant writing a new migration to perform that task.
So how do you get rid of the migrations? These are the steps I follow:
Delete the migration files
Write a rake task to delete their corresponding rows in the schema_migrations table of your database.
Run rake db:migrate to regenerate structure.sql/schema.rb.
Validate that the only thing changed in structure.sql/schema.rb is removed lines corresponding to each of the migrations you deleted.
Deploy, then run the rake task from step 2 on production.
Make sure other developers run the rake task from step 2 on their machines.
The second item is necessary to keep schema/structure accurate, which, again, is the only thing that actually matters here.
It's fine to remove old migrations once you're comfortable they won't be needed. The purpose of migrations is to have a tool for making and rolling back database changes. Once the changes have been made and in production for a couple of months, odds are you're unlikely to need them again. I find that after a while they're just cruft that clutters up your repo, searches, and file navigation.
Some people will run the migrations from scratch to reload their dev database, but that's not really what they're intended for. You can use rake db:schema:load to load the latest schema, and rake db:seed to populate it with seed data. rake db:reset does both for you. If you've got database extensions that can't be dumped to schema.rb then you can use the sql schema format for ActiveRecord and run rake db:structure:load instead.
Yes. I guess if you have completely removed any model and related table also from database, then it is worth to put it in migration. If model reference in migration does not depend on any other thing, then you can delete it. Although that migration is never going to run again as it has already run and even if you don't delete it from existing migration, then whenever you will migrate database fresh, it cause a problem.
So better it to remove that reference from migration. And refactore/minimize migrations to one or two file before big release to live database.
I agree, no value in 100+ migrations, the history is a mess, there is no easy way of tracking history on a single table and it adds clutter to your file finding. Simply Muda IMO :)
Here's a 3-step guide to squash all migrations into identical schema as production:
Step1: schema from production
# launch rails console in production
stream = StringIO.new
ActiveRecord::SchemaDumper.dump(ActiveRecord::Base.connection, stream); nil
stream.rewind
puts stream.read
This is copy-pasteable to migrations, minus the obvious header
Step 2: making the migrations without it being run in production
This is important. Use the last migration and change it's name and content. ActiveRecord stors the datetime number in it's schema_migrations table so it knows what it has run and not. Reuse the last and it'll think it has already run.
Example: rename 20161202212203_this_is_the_last_migration -> 20161202212203_schema_of_20161203.rb
And put the schema there.
Step 3: verify and troubleshoot
Locally, rake db:drop, rake db:create, rake db:migrate
Verify that schema is identical. One issue we encountered was datetime "now()" in schema, here's the best solution I could find for that: https://stackoverflow.com/a/40840867/252799