We have a Rails app with a PostgreSQL database. We use git for version control.
We're only two developers on the project, so we both have to do a little of everything, and when emergencies arise we often have to drop everything to address them.
We have a main branch (called staging just to be difficult 🌚) which we only use directly for quick fixes, minor copy changes, etc. For bigger features, we work on independent feature branches.
When I work on a feature that requires changes to the database, I naturally have to create migrations that alter the schema. Let's say I'm working on feature-emoji, and I create a migration 20150706101741_add_emoji_to_users.rb. I run rake db:migrate to get on with my work.
Later, I'm informed of some bug I need to address. I switch to staging to start work on it; however, now my app will misbehave because the db schema does not match what the app expects. So before doing git checkout staging, I have to remember to do rake db:rollback. And then later when I switch back to feature-emoji, I have to run rake db:migrate again.
This whole flow is sort of okay-ish when dealing with just two branches, but when the git rebases and git merges happen, it gets complicated.
Is there no better way to handle versioning of code and db in parallel? Or am I doomed to have to run annoying rake tasks every time I want to change branches?
There is no easy answer to this. You could perhaps set up something like a git hook to check for changes to schema.rb, and fail the checkout if any are present; but there are lots of edge cases to check for in such a setup.
Ultimately, the responsibility lies with the human developer to restore untracked parts of their environment — e.g. the database — to a clean state before switching branches.
Related
We have four stages in our release path (DEV, TEST, UAT and PROD) and I had been planning on using the validation step on DEV as a release to TEST gateway. If the developers think that it's worth the test team looking at a build they approve it otherwise they reject it (with different approvers on the other stages).
I'm looking to get some sort of clean up running on the build drop folder for builds that have been rejected (or abandonded). Either by deleting them or by changing the keep indefinitely flag on the TFS build.
Is there anyway to do this manually (or better yet automatically?)
I suspect it could be done by querying the RM database and calling the TFS api but I'd like to save the effort of doing this myself.
Meant to say that this is partially covered here (with a "no"):
How do we delete a release in TFS 2013 Release Management?
But it's only really the drop folder I care about not the release.
The answer is still basically "no". It's clear you already get how all of the pieces work -- the retain indefinitely flag is set when a release starts, and it's up to you to manually clear it if you don't want the build to be retained.
That said, it really should be a configurable option. It just isn't.
I'm looking at implementing Team City and Octopus Deploy for CI and Deployment on demand. However, database deployment is going to be tricky as many are old .net applications with messy databases.
Redgate seems to have a nice plug-in for Team City, but the price will probably be stumbling block
What do you use? I'm happy to execute scripts, but it's the comparison aspect (i.e. what has changed) I'm struggling with.
We utilize a free tool called RoundhousE for handling database changes with our project, and it was rather easy to use it with Octopus Deploy.
We created a new project in our solution called DatabaseMigration, included the RoundhousE exe in the project, a folder where we keep the db change scripts for RoundhousE, and then took advantage of how Octopus can call powershell scripts before, during, and after deployment (PreDeploy.ps1, Deploy.ps1, and PostDeploy.ps1 respectively) and added a Deploy.ps1 to the project as well with the following in it:
$roundhouse_exe_path = ".\rh.exe"
$scripts_dir = ".\Databases\DatabaseName"
$roundhouse_output_dir = ".\output"
if ($OctopusParameters) {
$env = $OctopusParameters["RoundhousE.ENV"]
$db_server = $OctopusParameters["SqlServerInstance"]
$db_name = $OctopusParameters["DatabaseName"]
} else {
$env="LOCAL"
$db_server = ".\SqlExpress"
$db_name = "DatabaseName"
}
&$roundhouse_exe_path -s $db_server -d $db_name -f $scripts_dir --env $env --silent -o > $roundhouse_output_dir
In there you can see where we check for any octopus variables (parameters) that are passed in when Octopus runs the deploy script, otherwise we have some default values we use, and then we simply call the RoundhousE executable.
Then you just need to have that project as part of what gets packaged for Octopus, and then add a step in Octopus to deploy that package and it will execute that as part of each deployment.
We've looked at the RedGate solution and pretty much reached the same conclusion you have, unfortunately it's the cost that is putting us off that route.
The only things I can think of are to generate version controlled DB migration scripts based upon your existing database, and then execute these as part of your build process. If you're looking at .NET projects in future (that don't use a CMS), could potentially consider using entity framework code first migrations.
I remember looking into this a while back, and for me it seems that there's a whole lot of trust you'd have to get put into this sort of process, as auto-deploying to a Development or Testing server isn't so bad, as the data is probably replaceable... But the idea of auto-updating a UAT or Production server might send the willies up the backs of an Operations team, who might be responsible for the database, or at least restoring it if it wasn't quite right.
Having said that, I do think its the way to go, though, as its far too easy to be scared of database deployment scripts, and that's when things get forgotten or missed.
I seem to remember looking at using Red Gate's SQL Compare and SQL Data Compare tools, as (I think) there was a command-line way into it, which would work well with scripted deployment processes, like Team City, CruiseControl.Net, etc.
The risk and complexity comes in more when using relational databases. In a NoSQL database where everything is "document" I guess continuous deployment is not such a concern. Some objects will have the "old" data structure till they are updated via the newly released code. In this situation your code would need to be able to support different data structures potentially. Missing properties or those with a different type should probably be covered in a well written, defensively coded application anyway.
I can see the risk in running scripts against the production database, however the point of CI and Continuous Delivery is that these scripts will be run and tested in other environments first to iron out any "gotchas" :-)
This doesn't reduce the amount of finger crossing and wincing when you actually push the button to deploy though!
Having database deploy automation is a real challenge especially when trying to perform the build once deploy many approach as being done to native application code.
In the build once deploy many, you compile the code and creates binaries and then copy them within the environments. From the database point of view, is the equivalent to generate the scripts once and execute them in all environments. This approach doesn't handle merges from different branches, out-of-process changes (critical fix in production) etc…
What I know works for database deployment automation (disclaimer - I'm working at DBmaestro) as I hear this from my customers is using the build and deploy on demand approach. With this method you build the database delta script as part of the deploy (execute) process. Using base-line aware analysis the solution knows if to generate the deploy script for the change or protect the target and not revert it or pause and allow you to merge changes and resolve the conflict.
Consider a simple solution we have tried successfully at this thread - How to continuously delivery SQL-based app?
Disclaimer - I work at CloudMunch
We using Octopus Deploy and database projects in visual studio solution.
Build agent creates a nuget packages using octopack with a dacpac file and publish profiles inside and pushes it onto NuGet server.
Then release process utilizes the SqlPackage.exe utility to generate the update script for the release environment and adds it as an artifact to the release.
Previously created script executed in the next step with SQLCMD.exe utility.
This separation of create and execute steps gives us a possibility to have a manual step in between, so that someone verifies before the script is executed on Live environment, not to mention, that script saved as an artifact in the release can always be referred to, at any later point.
Would there be a demand I would provide more details and step scripts.
This is a subject of common discussion, but through all my research I have not actually found a sound answer to this.
I develop my websites offline, and then launch them live through my hosting account.
I utilize codeigniter, and on that basis there are some fundamental differences between my offline and online copies, namely base urls and database configurations. As such I cannot simply develop and test my websites offline and then upload them as it requires small configuration changes which are easy to overlook and good lead to a none working live website.
The other factor is that when I am developing offline, I might add a database table or a column whilst creating some functionality. When I upload my local developments to my host, they often do not work as I have forgotten to upload the new database structure. Obviously this cannot happen - there cannot be any opportunity for a damaged or broken live website.
Further to this, I'd like to be able to have logs of my development - version control of sorts such that if i develop a feature, and then something else stops working I can easily look backwards to at least see the code changes which could have caused the change.
My fourth requirement is as follows: if i go away on holiday for a week without my development laptop, and then get a bug report, I have no way of fixing it. If i fix it on the live copy, not only is it dangerous, but i'll inevitably not update it on my local copy - as such when i update my live copy next time, that change will be lost. Is there a way that on any computer i can access my development setup, edit and test, launch to the live site, whilst also committing it such that my laptop local copy is up to date.
So yes.. in general im looking for a solution to make my development processes more efficient/suitable. Any ideas?
Thanks
Don't deploy by simply copying. Deploy by using a script (I use Apache Ant) that will automate the copy of specific files for each environment, the replacement of some values, etc.
This just needs rigor. Make a todo list while developing, and check that every modification on the server is done. You might also test the deploy procedure on a pre-production server which has an similar configuration as the production server, make sure everything is OK, and then apply the same, tested procedure on the production server
Just use a version control system. SVN or Git are two free candidates.
Make your version control server available from anywhere. If it's an open-source project, free hosting solutions exist. Of course, if you don't have a development computer wvailable, you'll have to checkout the whole project, and probably install some tools to be able to develop, test and deploy. Just try to make it as easy as possible, or always have your laptop available. If you plan to work, have your toolbox with you. If you don't plan to work, then don't work. When you have finished some development, commit to the server. When you go back to your laptop, update your working copy from the server.
Small additions and clarifications to JB
Use any VCS, which can work (in a good way) with branches - your local and prod systems are good candidates for separate branches, where you share common code but have branch-specific config. It'll require some changes in your everyday workflow (code in "test", merge finished with "prod", deploy /by tools, not hand/ only after merge...), but it's fair price
Changing of workflow, again. As JB noted - don't deploy by hand, don't deploy wrong branch, don't deploy "prod" before finished merge. But now build-tools are rather smart, you can check such pre-condition inside builder
Just use VCS, maybe DVCS will be somehow better. I say strong "No-no" for Git as first VCS, but you have wide choice even without it - SVN (poor branch|merge comparing to DVCS), Bazaar (not a tool of my dream, but, who knows), Mercurial, Fossil SCM, Monotone
Don't work on live, never do anyting outside your SCM. One source of changes is a rule of happy developer. Or don't work at all at free-time, or have codebase always reacheable for you (free code-hosting /GoogleCode, SourceForge, BitBucket, Github, Assembla, LaunchPad/ or own server), get it as needed, change, save, deploy
Let's say we have a continuous integration server. When I check in, the post-hook pulls the latest code, runs the tests, packages everything. What is the best way to also automate the database changes?
Ideally, I'd build an installer that could either build a database from scratch or update an existing one using some automated syncing method.
I've recently bumped into an article, that might be of use.
The author explained some of the best continuous integration practices including testing, processing and automation.
Here are some of the key takeaways:
In many shops code is unit tested at the point of commit. For databases, it is preferred running all unit tests at once and in sequence against a QA database, vs development, as a part of the Test step
The test step is a critical part of any CI/CD process. Test scripts, including unit tests themselves, should also be versioned in source control, extracted at the point of the Build step and executed
Pulling data from production is appealing as a quick expedient, but is never a good idea
The best approach is using a tool or script to quickly, repeatedly and reliably create synthetic test data for your transactional tables
Running unit tests to produce manual summary results for human consumption defeats the purpose of automation. We need machine readable results, that can allow an automated process to abort, branch and/or continue.
Running a CI process, which requires 100% of all tests to pass, is akin to not having CI at all, if the workflow pipeline is set up atomically to stop on failure, which it should. To thread the needle, tests should have built in thresholds, that will raise an error based on either the % of tests failing or in some cases, if certain high priority tests fail.
All processes should ultimately produce a Boolean result of pass or fail, but some non-automated processes can easily find their way into your CI workflow pipeline (e.g. unit testing). Software should be plug-n-play into any workflow pipeline, taking known inputs and producing expected outputs – like pass, fail.
CI/CD process should be aborted on failure and a notification email should be immediately sent vs continuing to cycle the pipeline.
The CI process should not cycle again until any errors in the last build are fixed. On failure, the entire team should get the failure notification, including as many details as to what failed as possible.
If a pipeline takes 1 hour, from start to finish, to complete, including all the testing, then all the build intervals should be set to no less than one hour and all new commits should be queued, and applied to the next build.
No plain text passwords should exist in automation scripts
If you have the opportunity to define and control the whole database management and db creation process, have a serious look at DB Ghost - it's more than just a tool - it's a process.
If you like it and can implement it, you'll get great returns on it - but it's a bit of a "all-or-nothing" kind of approach. Recommended.
I would caution against using a db backup as a development artifact, most CI best practices suggest that you manage the schema, procedures, triggers, and views as first class development artifacts. The side effects is that you can take this one step further and use them to build a new database whenever you want, ideally you also have some data that can be pushed into the database.
Here is a cliff notes version to get your feet wet, but there is lots out there in this space:
http://www.infoq.com/news/2008/02/versioning_databases_series
I like some of the ideas that Scott Ambler has here as well, the site is good but the book is surprisingly deep for such a difficult set of problems.
http://www.agiledata.org/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0321293533/ambysoftinc
Red Gate is a quite robust solution and it works out of the box.
But the best thing is that you can integrate it with your continuous integration process. I use it with Msbuild and Hudson.
quickly explaining how it works:
http://blog.vincentbrouillet.com/post/2011/02/10/Database-schema-synchronisation-with-RedGate
if you need to know more about this, feel free to ask
The Red Gate approach using SQL Source Control and the SQL Compare Pro command line is detailed with code samples here:
http://downloads.red-gate.com/HelpPDF/ContinuousIntegrationForDatabasesUsingRedGateSQLTools.pdf
Troy Hunt wrote an article on Simple Talk entitled "Continuous Integration for SQL Server Databases":
http://www.simple-talk.com/content/article.aspx?article=1247
Have you looked at FluentMigrator? The default download includes Nant scripts that would be easy to add in to a CI. Free, open source and easy to use. Works for a wide variety of databases.
The latest version (5.0) of DB Ghost doesn't suffer from the "non ASCII character" problem (it just means that the file is UTF8 encoded) and it should be able to do exactly what you need.
Also, the tools can actually be used standalone to perform the various functions (scripting, building, comparing, upgrading and packaging) if you want, it's just that using them all together provides a full end-to-end process thus making the overall value greater than the sum of it's parts.
In essence, to make changes to the schema you update individual object creation scripts and per-table insert scripts (for reference data) that are held under source control just like you were developing a “day one” greenfield database. The DB Ghost tools are used to enable the whole thing by building these scripts into a brand new database (using continuous integration if required) and then comparing and upgrading a target database, which can be a copy of the production database. This process produces a delta script which can be used on the real production database during go-live.
You can even produce a Visual Studio database project and add it into any solutions you currently have.
Malc
I know this post is old, but we have a new solution that takes the following approach:
Developers script individual SQL changes and commit them to source
control.
Our program (OneScript) pulls the change script files from
source control, filters and sorts them, and generates a single
release script file.
That release script file is then applied to a
database to do a release.
Our home page here explains this process in more detail and has a link to an example that does these steps automatically from a Subversion hook. So soon after a commit, the developer receives an email saying if the release was successful or had errors. The PowerScript code is included.
Disclaimer -I'm working at the company that makes OneScript.
I'm working at a company that does several releases to production every year and during the build up to each release we gather up a collection of 1 time sql install scripts like table creation and dataports.
The way things currently work is that after the release to production, we branch, tag then we delete all 1 time scripts from subversion.
This seems to get the job done but to me it never seemed like the proper way to solve the problem.
Could you imagine deleting all your sourcecode every release and then writing patches for production?
The downsides that I see is if you want to reference and old script you have to checkout a tag or branch from subversion.
Our SVN Repo currently looks something like this
svnrepo/mywebsite/src
svnrepo/mywebsite/database/storedprocs
svnrepo/mywebsite/database/installscripts
I was thinking that a more accurate way to model what we want to do in SVN is the following.
Use an svn:externals attribute to point to the latest version. Then after every release just point it to the latest.
svnrepo/mywebsite/trunk/src/
svnrepo/mywebsite/trunk/src/database/installscripts/
-> svnrepo/mywebsite/trunk/database/Release_3
svnrepo/mywebsite/trunk/database/Release_1
svnrepo/mywebsite/trunk/database/Release_2
svnrepo/mywebsite/trunk/database/Release_3
Using this model we no longer svn delete any sql scripts and enable a database developer to check out svnrepo/mywebsite/trunk/database/ and easily view all the database development that has occurred.
Any comments on my ideas, the current structure, or the best way to manage this situation?
Thanks
Synchronising database changes and code changes in subversion is hard
If you have the option of building the Database from scratch you can put the whole DDL into the repository along with the code, then you don’t need to worry about which changes go with which release.
Looking at your situation I don’t think you need to use externals (they can cause headaches). You also don’t need to delete everything. It is not too difficult to check out a branch (or you could just use a repository browser).
You could even put the old db releases into a separate tag when you release so they are all in one place, which the database people can have checked out. If you are doing releases once a year this won’t be hard.
This question may also help