There may be an answer to this somewhere else on here, but I can't find it.
My organization uses a EHR called TIER that has a SQL back-end. One of the features of the EHR is that you can "scan" a document to a folder on the network with the unique ID of a row in a table on the server. Then from the EHR, you can open a record from the table and then it links to the documents in the folder with the same Unique ID.
An example may be helpful - In the EHR I create a document (a row in the ScannedFormTable) with unique ID of 100. I then "scan" (basically attaching or copying) a pdf or other document into a folder on the network (say D:\ScannedDocuments) with the name of 100, so abc.pdf is now in D:\ScannedDocuments\100. Then from the document in the EHR, I can open the pdf. However, without opening the document to check I can't see if there is any file in the ...\100 folder.
Through some googling, I found that using master.sys.xp_dirtree (and "Undocumented" procedure I think) I can have the EHR "see" the name of files "attached" to the documents. The issue is that I can run this stored procedure from SSMS, but can't from the EHR itself. I have tried to figure out a way to grant security permission for the user in the EHR to run the procedure vs running the script in the background on the server at regular intervals.
Any insights would be greatly appreciated. As you may have noticed from the number of " used, I am a self taught SQL user who is better at googling than actually understanding the intricacies of the language.
I found that using master.sys.xp_dirtree (and "Undocumented" procedure I think) I can have the EHR "see" the name of files "attached" to the documents.
I think you are confusing different things. Yes, YOU can (and tsql can) use that undocumented and unsupported procedure. However, your "EHR" is a system designed to provide specific functionality. It isn't clear what you are trying to accomplish, but to "get" your system to do something obviously depends on your system, its features, and what you are actually trying to accomplish.
I'll add that tsql is not designed to access the filesystem natively - hence the use of undocumented extended procedures. If you are simply trying to verify or traverse this ScannedFormtable table and verify that there is some sort of file in the appropriate location, you might find this task easier to implement in a typical programming language.
If you want better suggestions, it would help to discuss your goal. And consider carefully what you are trying to do, since it is quite easy to create a security hole by altering permissions.
Related
I have for some time helped a customer to export mdb table data to csv files (and then to further process these csv files). I have used Ubuntu, so mdbtools (mdb viewer) has been available to me. Now the customer wants me to automate the work I do in the form of a Windows program. I have run into two problems:
After some hours, I still haven't found a free tool on Windows that can export my table data in a way that I can incorporate in a program/script. Jackcess (jackcess.sourceforge.net) looks promising, but when running the downloaded jar a totally unrelated Nokia Suite program pops up...
I have managed to open two of the tables in a python program by using the pyodbc module, but all the other tables fail to open because of "no read permissions". Until now I thought that there were no access restrictions on the database, because mdb viewer on Ubuntu opens all tables without any fuzz. There is no other file available to be, just the mdb file. One possibility might be that this is not a permissions problem at all, but a problem with special characters in column names. All the tables that I cannot open have at least one column name with a national character, whereas the 2 two tables I can open do not. I tried to use square brackets in the SQL select called from python, like so:
SQL = 'SELECT [colname] from SomeTable;'
but it makes no difference. I cannot fetch data from the columns that do not contain national characters either (except from the 2 two tables that do work).
If it indeed is a permission problem, any solution must also be possible for my program to perform, there must not be any manual steps.
Edit: The developer of the program that produces the mdb files has confirmed that there is no restrictions for any tables. So, the error message "no read permissions" is misleading. I will instead focus on getting around what I presume is a problem with national characters in column names. I will start with the JSDB approach suggested below. Thanks everyone!
Edit 2: I made a discovery that I feel is important: All tables that I can open using pyodbc have Owner=Admin whereas all tables that I cannot open have no owner at all (empty string it seems, "Owner=").
Edit 3: I gave JDBC a shot. Same error again, as one could expect given the finding in Edit 2. Apparently the problem to solve is the table ownership (although MDB Viewer under Linux doesn't seem to care about that...). Since the creator of the files says he didn't introduce any permission settings, I guess the strange table ownership could be the result of using new programs (like 2010) to read data produced in a old program (like sometime in the 90s), or were introduced during some migration of the old program. Any ideas on how to solve it?
You might be able to use VBScript. VBScript is usually used in ASP files for web pages, but can be used stand alone as a Windows program as well.
VBScript is free as it's code you write in Notepad.
Others may come up with better answers for you. Good luck.
At work, the database is not documented at all. Furthermore, the stored procedures, functions and views are all encrypted, this rules out a lot of tools that document these objects for you. All I have are the plain .SQL files that generate the database, schemas, tables, functions and all.
I'd like to know, is there a tool that can read these files and generate a Doxygen-like documentation? Preferably open-source or freeware.
I found IzzySoft's HyperSQL and SourceForge's project PLDoc do something very close to what I'd need, though both seem to be very PL/SQL specific. I want something that reads SQL source files (that understands T-SQL's idiosyncracies), parses them, and gets me:
List of SPs, UDFs, etc. defined within each file
List of objects (both tables/views and procs/functions) each object depends on (directly and, if possible, also indirectly)
Calling and dependencies graphs (i.e. what calls what and is called by what)
If possible, when an SP uses a table/view, how's it using it (INSERT/DELETE/UPDATE/SELECT/mix???)
I've already developped a tiny Perl script that minimally parses these files attempting to get first point - but then it's just a hack and lacks a lot of polish. I'm sure there must be a tool out there which does the job, I want to believe I won't have to code it myself.
Thanks in advance,
Joe
We use Red Gate SQL Doc to generate ours.
However, it works from a database not files: it's easier to read everything from system tables (permission, dependecies, datatypes etc) than parse scripts. Parsing scripts is what the DB engine does...
Can you not generate an empty DB from the source files (remove WITH ENCRYPTION) and generate from that?
Or decrypt if you have sa rights?
My database has had several successive maintainers over the years and any naming guidelines that may have once been in place have been ignored.
I'd like to rename the stored procedures to a consistent format. Obviously I can rename them from within SQL Server Management Studio, but this will not then update the calls made in the website code behind (C#/ASP.NET).
Is there anything I can do to ensure all calls get updated to the new names, short of searching for every single old procedure name in the code? Does Visual Studio have the ability to refactor such stored procedure names?
NB I do not believe my question to be a duplicate of this question as the latter is solely about renaming within the database.
You could make the change in stages:
Copy of the stored procedures to the new stored procedures under their new name.
Alter the old stored procedures to call the new ones.
Add logging to the old stored procedures when you've changed all the code in the website.
After a while when you're not seeing any calls to the old stored procedures and you're happy you've found all the calls in the web site, you can remove the old stored procedures and logging.
You can move the 'guts' of the SPROC to a new SPROC meeting your new naming conventions, and then leave the original sproc as a shell / wrapper which delegates to the new SPROC.
You can also add an 'audit' table to track when the old wrapper SPROC is called - this way you will know that there are no dependencies on the old SPROC, and the old SPROC can be safely dropped (also, make sure that it isn't just 'your app' using the DB - e.g. cross database joins or other apps)
This has a small performance penalty, and won't really buy you that much (other than being able to 'find' your new SPROCs easier)
You will need to handle this in at least two areas, the application and the database. There could be other areas as well, and you have to be careful not to overlook them.
The Application
A Nice Practice for Future Projects
It helps to abstract your sprocs out. In our apps, we wrap all of our sprocs in a giant class, I can make calls like this:
Dim SomeData as DataTable = Sprocs.sproc_GetSomeData(5)
That way, the code end is nice and encapsulated. I can go into Sprocs.sproc_GetSomeData and tweak the sproc name in just one place, and of course I can right click on the method and do a symbolic rename to fix the method call solution-wide.
Without the Abstraction
Without that abstraction, you can just do Find In Files (Cntl+Shift+F) for the sproc name and then if the results looks right, open the files up and Find/Replace all the occurances.
The Sql Server
Don't Trust View Dependencies
On the SQL server end, theoretically in MSSMS 2008 you can right click on a sproc and select View Dependencies.
That should show you a list of all the places where the sproc is used in the database, however my confidence in this feature is very low. It might be better in SQL 2008, but in previous versions it definitely had problems.
View Dependencies hurt me, and it will take time for that to heal. :)
Wrap It!
You end up having to keep the old sproc around for awhile. This is the major reason why renaming sprocs is a such a project - it can take a month to finally be done with it.
First replace its contents with some simple TSQL that calls the the new sproc with the same parameters, and write some logging so that once some time goes by, you can tell if the old sproc is actually unused.
Finally, when you're sure the old sproc is unused, delete it.
Other Areas?
There could be a lot of other areas as well. Reporting Services springs to mind. SSIS packages. Using the technique of keeping the old sproc around and re-routing to the new one (mentioned above) will help you know if you missed anything, however it won't tell you what you missed. This can lead to much pain!
Good luck!
Short of testing every path in your application to ensure that any calls to the database and the relevant stored procedures have been updated... no.
Use global search and replace (but review each suggested replacement) to try to avoid missing any instances. If you app is well structured then there really should only be 1 place each stored proc is called.
As far as changing your application, I have all my stored procs as settings in the web.config file, so all the names are in one place and can be changed at any time to match changes to the database.
When the application needs to call a stored proc, the name is determined from web.config.
This makes it easier to manage all the potential calls which the application could make to the database services layer.
It will be a bit of a tedious search through your source code and other database objects I'm afraid.
Don't forget SSIS Packages, SQL Agent Jobs, Reporting Services rdl as well as your main application code.
You could use a regular expression like spProc1|spProc2 to search in the source code for all object names at the same time if you have a tool that supports searching through files using regular expressions (I have used RegexBuddy for this in the past)
If you want to just cover the possibility you might have missed the odd one you could leave all the previous stored procedures behind for a month and just have them log a custom SQL trace event with APP_NAME(), SUSER_NAME() and any other info you find helpful then have it call the renamed version. Then set up a trace monitoring this event.
If you use a connection to DB, stored procedures etc, you should create a service class to delegate these methods.
This way when something in your database, SP etc changes, you only have to update your service class, and everything is protected from breaking.
There are tools for VS that can manage changing a name, like refactor, and resharper
I did this and I relied heavily on global search in my source code for stored procedure names and SQL digger to find sql procs that called sql proces.
http://www.sqldigger.com/
SQL Server (as of SQL 2000) poorly understands it own dependencies, so one is left searching the text of the scripts to find dependencies, which could be other stored procs or substrings of dynamic sql.
I would obtain a list of references to a procedure by using the following, because SSMS dependencies doesn't pickup dynamic SQL references or references outside the database.
SELECT OBJECT_NAME(m.object_id), m.*
FROM SYS.SQL_MODULES m
WHERE m.definition LIKE N'%my_sproc_name%'
The SQL needs to be run in every database where there could be references.
syscomments and INFORMATION_SCHEMA.routines have nvarchar(4000) columns. So if "mySprocName" is used at position 3998, it won't be found. syscomments does have multiple lines but ROUTINES truncates. Should you disagree, take it up with gbn.
Based on that list of dependencies, I'd create new stored procedures starting the foundation stored procedures - those with the least dependencies. But I'd mind not to create stored procedures, prefixing the name with "sp_"
Verify the foundation procedures work identically to existing ones
Move to the next level of stored procedures - repeat steps 1-3 as needed till the highest level procedure has been processed.
Test the switch over the application uses to the new procedure - don't wait until the all the procedures are updated to test interaction with the application code. This doesn't need to be done for every stored procedure, but waiting to do this wholesale isn't a great approach either.
Developing in parallel has it's risks too:
Any changes to existing code needs to also be applied to the new code. If possible, work in areas where development is frozen or use a bug fix as an opportunity to migrate to new code rather than apply the patch in two places (while also minimizing downtime for transition).
Use a utility like FileSeek to search the contents inside each and every file in your project folder. Don't trust the windows search - it's slow and user-unfriendly.
So if you had a Stored Procedure named OldSprocOne and want to rename it to SP_NewONe, search all occurrences Of OldSprocOne then search all occurrences of OldSprocOne to see if that name isn't already being used somewhere else and won't cause problems. Then rename each and every occurrence in the code.
This can be very time consuming and repetitive for larger systems.
I would be more concerned about ignoring the names of the procedures and replacing your legacy DAL with Enterprise Library Data Access Block 5
Database Accessors in Enterprise Library 5 DAAB - Database.ExecuteSprocAccessor
Having code that is like
public Contact FetchById(int id)
{
return _database.ExecuteSprocAccessor<Contact>
("FetchContactById", id).SingleOrDefault();
}
Will have atleast a billion times more value than having stored procs with consistent names, especially if the current code passes around DataTables or DataSets ::shudders::
I'me all in favor of refactoring any sort of code.
What you really need here is a method slowly and incrementally renaming your stored procs.
I certainly would not do a global find and replace.
Rather, as you identify small pieces of functionality and understand the relationships between the procs, you can re-factor in small pieces.
Fundamental to this process, though, is source-code control of your database.
If you do not manage changes to your database the same as normal code, you will be in serious trouble.
Have a look at DBSourceTools. http://dbsourcetools.codeplex.com
It's specifically designed to help developers get their databases under source code control.
You need a repeatable method of restoring your database to a specific state - prior to refactoring.
Then re-apply your refactored changes in a controlled way.
Once you have embraced this mindset, this mammoth and error-prone task will become simple.
This is assuming that you use SQL Server 2005 or above. An option that I have used before is to rename the old database object and create a SQL Server Synonym with the old name. This will allow for you to update your objects to whatever convention you choose and replace the refrences in code, SSIS packages, etc... as you come along them. Then you can concentrate updating the references in your code gradually over however maintenance releases you choose (as opposed to breaking them all at once). As you feel that you've found all references you can remove the synonym as the code goes to QA.
I created a database for tracking metrics, with some automation tricks (email, .doc,.ppt presentations, etc) with a very large Main-table, and lots of forms/GUI. This is the first time I have ever I worried about an MDE/front-end for the thing. So if you would be so kind to answer a few questions, or offer any advice, it would be greatly appreciated (I would hate for all this work to not be utilized).
What is the first thing I need to do? It the 2000 version that must be converted to 03 to create the MDE, but does that get done before I use the database splitter?
Will the amount of objects in the database effect the ability to do this? I have something like 80 forms, 70 queries, 20+ macros, 12 tables, etc...but does the amount of objects prevent some of this from working well once the front end is there?
when i split the database, can I continue to work/make changes and such on the "back end", and have those changes directly effect the front end?
These may be some basic questions, but I don't know the answer so.....Thanks!
Here is my 2 ¢.
Question 1 - I have never used the database splitter as I feel I have more control doing it manually. If you do it manually you can do it to a version that does not have a database splitter. But if you do use the splitter then--yes--you will have to upgrade to a version that has a splitter before doing it.
To do it manually here are the steps.
Backup everything.
Create a copy of your file into the same directory. So if you have an MyApp.MDB create a copy into the same directory with a new name, such as MyAppDATA.mdb.
Open the new DATA file (MyAppDATA.mdb) and delete all of the objects EXCEPT the TABLES.
Open the App file (MyApp.mdb) and delete all of the tables.
Also in MyApp.mdb...go to the File/Get External Data/Link Tables menu to link the tables in MyAppDATA.mdb to MyApp.mdb. Select All and create the links.
That should do it. And if you screw up you made a backup...right?
A couple of tips and gotchas...be sure that you go to Tools/Options and that you are NOT showing System and Hidden tables. You just don't want to delete system tables from MyApp. Another way to do it is do NOT delete tables that start with MSys or USys.
Question 2 - Does not matter how many object you have. In fact you don't have that many objects anyway.
Question 3 - Yes...you will make backend changes in MyAppData.mdb and when you open MyApp.mdb those changes will auto-magically be there to see and query against etc. (In the query designer you may need to save/close/reopen to see new fields if you made the mod while in the query). The EXCEPTION to that is New Tables You will have to use the File/Get External Data/Link Tables option to create links to new tables.
One thing to remember (and that I hope you already realize) is that the one downside of splitting the database is that when you deploy the front end file that usually the relative path to the data will vary from machine to machine and there is no automatic re-linking of tables in access. If your target clients have full access you can always use Tools/Database Utilities/Linked Table Manager to refresh the links to the right location. If you can't do that then you will have to do one of the following:
1. Write code that does the automatic re-linking for you. Basically it will check the links...if invalid it will prompt the user for the data location (or look it up in an INI file) and re-link the tables.
2. Always deploy your app to the same location on all machines. If you have commercial visions for your application this won't work...I mention it for academic reasons. It might be doable for a limited deployment where you have a lot of control over file placement on each machine.
3. Put the Data file (MyAppDATA.mdb) onto a network share and link the table across the network using a drive mapping or UNC (\myserver\mydata\ApplicationData\MyAppData.mdb). The latter is preferred but both of them run the same risks as number two.
Seth
PS This answer assumes Access 2003.
PPS If you have commercial visions for your application then the table linking has got to be REALLY robust.
PPPS I agree with the commenter that you may want to take the plunge and do SQL if it is in your skill set.
One thing that hasn't been discussed, and that's the issue of whether the compile to MDE could fail. Basically, if your code compiles in your front-end MDB, it will convert to an MDE. But I've noticed that lots of people never compile.
Some hints for keeping your VBA code in good shape:
in VBE options, turn off COMPILE ON DEMAND.
add the COMPILE button to your standard VBE toolbar and USE IT OFTEN.
periodically, backup your MDB and decompile/recompile it.
Also, remember that you must keep the MDB source, as the VBA code is not editable in an MDE and not recoverable by any good method.
EDIT:
Steps for a decompile:
backup your MDB.
start an instance of Access with the /decompile commandline argument. For, instance, I have a shortcut on my deskstop that has this as the target:
"C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\OFFICE11\MSACCESS.EXE" /decompile
having opened that instance of Access, open the MDB you want to decompile. You will see nothing happen. DO NOTHING FURTHER IN THIS INSTANCE OF ACCESS -- close this instance of Access (the reason for this is that Michael Kaplan, who knows a thing or two about this, recommended that you never do any work in an Access instance opened with the decompile switch because he said there was no guarantee that the Access application code executed under those circumstances in a way that was fully safe for all kinds of Access work).
open the just-decompiled MDB holding down the shift key (you want to be sure that startup routines don't run because that would likely recompile the product before you've finished your cleanup) and compact the MDB (holding down the shift key again).
open the code editor and compile the project (DEBUG -> COMPILE [db name] for those who haven't step #2 in my original compiling instructions at the top of the post before the edit).
compact the MDB (doesn't matter if you bypass startup, since it's already fully compiled).
Why so many steps?
Because the purpose of the decompile is to get rid of the compiled p-code in order to start afresh from the canonical VBA code. Following the steps above insures that you have completely cleared the data pages storing the compiled code before you recompile. The reason for this is that without the compact step after the decompile, under some very rare circumstances, the code can behave strangely. I can't imagine that the old discarded p-code is being used again, but there's something about the pointers between the canonical code and the compiled code that apparently doesn't get completely flushed by a decompile without a compact.
This would be a comment to Seth's answer, but my rep isn't high enough to comment yet.
Seth did a great job answering your questions, I just wanted to add a bit more to part #1 about using the Database Splitter. The Database Splitter in the Tools menu works fine. Doing it manually is alright too, but it's a whole lot faster and easier to use the Database Splitter. I've used it a dozen times and never encountered any issues after using it.
http://www.databasedev.co.uk/split_a_database.html has a decent page about some of the pros, cons of splitting your database.
http://www.accessmvp.com/TWickerath/articles/multiuser.htm also has some good info when dealing with a split database in a multi-user environment.
Seth gave you a very good answer. But I'll add a few comments.
The number of objects only becomes relevant when you get close to about 1000 forms, reports and modules which have code. There's a limit about there. If you do get that message when trying to make an MDE then you almost certainly have a code error and need to compile to find the error
Another resource is "Splitting your app into a front end and back end Tips"
See the Auto FE Updater downloads page to make the process of distributing new FEs relatively painless.. The utility also supports Terminal Server/Citrix quite nicely.
We are currently reviewing how we store our database scripts (tables, procs, functions, views, data fixes) in subversion and I was wondering if there is any consensus as to what is the best approach?
Some of the factors we'd need to consider include:
Should we checkin 'Create' scripts or checkin incremental changes with 'Alter' scripts
How do we keep track of the state of the database for a given release
It should be easy to build a database from scratch for any given release version
Should a table exist in the database listing the scripts that have run against it, or the version of the database etc.
Obviously it's a pretty open ended question, so I'm keen to hear what people's experience has taught them.
After a few iterations, the approach we took was roughly like this:
One file per table and per stored procedure. Also separate files for other things like setting up database users, populating look-up tables with their data.
The file for a table starts with the CREATE command and a succession of ALTER commands added as the schema evolves. Each of these commands is bracketed in tests for whether the table or column already exists. This means each script can be run in an up-to-date database and won't change anything. It also means that for any old database, the script updates it to the latest schema. And for an empty database the CREATE script creates the table and the ALTER scripts are all skipped.
We also have a program (written in Python) that scans the directory full of scripts and assembles them in to one big script. It parses the SQL just enough to deduce dependencies between tables (based on foreign-key references) and order them appropriately. The result is a monster SQL script that gets the database up to spec in one go. The script-assembling program also calculates the MD5 hash of the input files, and uses that to update a version number that is written in to a special table in the last script in the list.
Barring accidents, the result is that the database script for a give version of the source code creates the schema this code was designed to interoperate with. It also means that there is a single (somewhat large) SQL script to give to the customer to build new databases or update existing ones. (This was important in this case because there would be many instances of the database, one for each of their customers.)
There is an interesting article at this link:
https://blog.codinghorror.com/get-your-database-under-version-control/
It advocates a baseline 'create' script followed by checking in 'alter' scripts and keeping a version table in the database.
The upgrade script option
Store each change in the database as a separate sql script. Store each group of changes in a numbered folder. Use a script to apply changes a folder at a time and record in the database which folders have been applied.
Pros:
Fully automated, testable upgrade path
Cons:
Hard to see full history of each individual element
Have to build a new database from scratch, going through all the versions
I tend to check in the initial create script. I then have a DbVersion table in my database and my code uses that to upgrade the database on initial connection if necessary. For example, if my database is at version 1 and my code is at version 3, my code will apply the ALTER statements to bring it to version 2, then to version 3. I use a simple fallthrough switch statement for this.
This has the advantage that when you deploy a new version of your application, it will automatically upgrade old databases and you never have to worry about the database being out of sync with the software. It also maintains a very visible change history.
This isn't a good idea for all software, but variations can be applied.
You could get some hints by reading how this is done with Ruby On Rails' migrations.
The best way to understand this is probably to just try it out yourself, and then inspecting the database manually.
Answers to each of your factors:
Store CREATE scripts. If you want to checkout version x.y.z then it'd be nice to simply run your create script to setup the database immediately. You could add ALTER scripts as well to go from the previous version to the next (e.g., you commit version 3 which contains a version 3 CREATE script and a version 2 → 3 alter script).
See the Rails migration solution. Basically they keep the table version number in the database, so you always know.
Use CREATE scripts.
Using version numbers would probably be the most generic solution — script names and paths can change over time.
My two cents!
We create a branch in Subversion and all of the database changes for the next release are scripted out and checked in. All scripts are repeatable so you can run them multiple times without error.
We also link the change scripts to issue items or bug ids so we can hold back a change set if needed. We then have an automated build process that looks at the issue items we are releasing and pulls the change scripts from Subversion and creates a single SQL script file with all of the changes sorted appropriately.
This single file is then used to promote the changes to the Test, QA and Production environments. The automated build process also creates database entries documenting the version (branch plus build id.) We think this is the best approach with enterprise developers. More details on how we do this can be found HERE
The create script option:
Use create scripts that will build you the latest version of the database from scratch, which is empty except the default lookup data.
Use standard version control techniques to store,branch,tag versions and view histories of your objects.
When upgrading a live database (where you don't want to loose data), create a blank second copy of the database at the new version and use a tool like red-gate's link text
Pros:
Changes to files are tracked in a standard source-code like manner
Cons:
Reliance on manual use of a 3rd party tool to do actual upgrades (no/little automation)
Our company checks them in simply because someone decided to put it in some SOX document that we do. It makes no sense to me at all, except possible as a reference document. I can't see a time we'd pull them out and try and use them again, and if we did we'd have to know which one ran first and which one to run after which. Backing up the database is much more important then keeping the Alter scripts.
for every release we need to give one update.sql file which contains all the new table scripts, alter statements, new/modified packages,roles,etc. This file is used to upgrade the database from 1 version to 2.
What ever we include in update.sql file above one all this statements need to go to individual respective files. like alter statement has to go to table as a new column (table script has to be modifed not Alter statement is added after create table script in the file) in the same way new tables, roles etc.
So whenever if user wants to upgrade he will use the first update.sql file to upgrade.
If he want to build from scrach then he will use the build.sql which already having all the above statements, it makes the database in sync.
sriRamulu
Sriramis4u#yahoo.com
In my case, I build a SH script for this work: https://github.com/reduardo7/db-version-updater
How is an open question
In my case I am trying to create something simple that is easy to use for developers and I do it under the following scheme
Things I tested:
File-based script handling in git using GitlabCI
It does not work, collisions are created and the Administration part has to be done by hand in case of disaster and the development part is too complicated
Use of permissions and access via mysql clients
There is no traceability on changes to the database and the transition to production is manual
Use of programs mentioned here
They require uploading the structures and many adaptations and usually you end up with change control just like the word
Repository usage
Could not control the DRP part
I could not properly control the backups
I don't think it is a good idea to have the backups on the same server and you generate high lasgs for the process
This was what worked best
Manage permissions per user and generate traceability of everything that is sent to the database
Multi platform
Use of development-Production-QA database
Always support before each modification
Manage an open repository for change control
Multi-server
Deactivate / Activate access to the web page or App through Endpoints
the initial project is in:
In case the comment manager reads this part, I understand the self-promotion but please just remove this part and leave the rest since I think it complies with the answer to the question reacted in the post ...
https://hub.docker.com/r/arelis/gitdb
I hope this reaches you since I see that several
There is an interesting article with new URL at: https://blog.codinghorror.com/get-your-database-under-version-control/
It a bit old but the concepts are still there. Good Read!