I have an application that is now 4+ years old that is exhibiting some odd behavior on our latest deployment. The application uses nHibernate for all inserts / updates / selects, etc. We are currently using .NET 2.0, and nHibernate 1.2 (I know, we need to upgrade)
This deployment is on Windows 2008 Server x64, IIS 7.5 - what I have seen so far is that the application runs, but is unable to insert or update records in the DB - reads seem fine so far, but writes are a problem. SOME writes actually work, inserts into some small tables, but most never even make it to the DB.
Using SQL Profiler, the insert / updates never make it to the server, and turning log4net up to DEBUG, and show_sql true - the select statements appear, but the insert / update statements never make it into the log at all, and never show up at the server.
What's even more odd is that the application seems to be oblivious to this - the commandandclose runs without exception (open session in view with an httpmodule), the domain objects come back with uuid's generated, etc. but never get persisted.
Certainly an upgrade is due, but I would hate to try it during a deployment, and without time to accurately test the app. Any ideas?
My guess is that the default ISession FlushMode has been changed from Auto to Never or Commit. Never means that the session will flush when Flush() is called by the application; Commit means that the session will flush when a transaction is committed.
Back out your current deployment and return to what you had before. Then look for the mistake someone made. If it used to insert and now does not, then something is wrong with your current code. If it isn't creating the insert/update statments, then I'd look first at where they are supposed to be created. Did the current deplyment actually insert record or update them in dev? Did anybody test that or were you relying onthe fact that it didn;t pop up an error? If it did work in dev and doesn't work in prod, I'd look at the envirnmental differnences between dev and prod.
Both good answers, the problem was in the deployment. The web.config was setup for IIS6, and the deployment to IIS7 did not properly setup the open session in view HttpModule that is used to commit the transaction. Changing the pipeline mode from Integrated to Classic solved the problem.
Related
I recently upgraded both Drupal and CiviCRM to the latest versions. Drupal works fine, and so does Civi except when I move to the Civi menu, I get a message that says "Database check failed - the database looks to have been partially upgraded. You may want to reload the database with the backup and try the upgrade process again." This happened earlier and reloading the most recent backup didn't help. We had to go back quite a ways before we found one that did, then had to reload a lot of data from .CSV files and by hand. I'd rather not go through with that again.
One thing we found when comparing the development site on my WAMP desktop (which was a new install that works well) with the one on my ISP's server is that the server version contained two MyISam-format files from, or generated by, CiviCase where Civi wants to see InnoDB-format files. My ISP, far more knowlegable than I am about MySQL, converted these two files two InnoDB and the problem remains. This leaves me with two questions:
could the MyISam files be the source of the "incomplete upgrade"? and
is there some way to reset a flag that tells Civi that the database is incomplete or to run the database check manually?
Thanks for any help. Civi seems to work OK as is, but the error message will be disturbing to my end users.
That message happens when you have begun the CiviCRM database upgrade but it hasn't finished. CiviCRM edits the version number in the civicrm_domain table to flag that you're in the middle of an upgrade, and when the upgrade completes, it should remove that.
The simple way to remove the message is to go edit that in the database, but it gets set there for a reason: your database upgrade never completed.
You should restore everything to the last version where it all was working--restore both the code and the database. Play around for a bit and make sure nothing funny is happening.
Run a normal CiviCRM upgrade, replacing the files and running the upgrade script. Take note of anything that seems funny when the upgrade script runs. You might try doing a minor upgrade--just a point release--simply to be sure that any upgrade is working fine.
At this point, you should either have no problems or a much more detailed problem.
Finally, please note that there is now a CiviCRM-specific StackExchange site, which is where you'll find the most CiviCRM experts to answer your questions.
Some colleagues were using an Excel file to keep track of some issues, and they have decided to switch to a better system, asking me to setup a Jira project for them and to import all the tickets. A way or the other I have done everything, but the resolution date is now wrong, because it's the one of when I ran the script to import them into Jira. They would like to have the original one, so that they can know when an issue was really fixed. Unfortunately there's no way to change it from Jira's interface, so I have to access the DB directly. The command, for the record, is like:
update jiraissue
set RESOLUTIONDATE = "2015-02-16 14:48:40"
where pkey = "OV001-1";
Now, low-level writes to a database in general are dangerous, and I am wondering whether there can be any risks. Our test server is not available right now, so I'd have to work directly on the production one. One thing I had seen on our test server is that this seemed to work, except that JQL queries such as
resolved < 2015-03-20
are wrong because they still use the old Resolution date. Clearly, I have to reindex; but I'm wondering whether it is safe. Does Jira perform some consistency checks? Like, verifying that a ticket is solved after it is created. In my case, since I have modified the resolution date but not the creation, it is a clear inconsistency. Will Jira complain about this? Is there the risk to corrupt the DB? And if I also modify the creation date, do I have to watch out for other things?
We are using Jira 5.2.11.
I have access to the test server again, and I have tried it. I have modified all the RESOLUTIONDATE fields I had to fix, and when I reloaded the page the new date was there. Jira didn't complain about anything. I reindexed the server, so that queries yield correct results, and I saw no issues. Then I even ran the integrity checks (Administration -> System -> Integrity Checker), and no error was found.
Finally I did the same on the production server, and again everything is running fine.
I can therefore conclude that the operation is not dangerous at all, and it can be done safely.
I developed a client/server database.
The server hosts the oracle database, the one I manipulate with the client (in android).
Everything works correctly, but when I insert/delete/modify a record, the database shows all the changes correctly, but the information I have on the FDClientDataSet is the one that does not contain my latest changes. I was doing some workaround like ClientDataset.Active:= False and later setting it to True, that was working but causes an exception when running the app on the android device.
I have tried tons of things, like update, ApplyUpdates methods, etc, but nothing works. Any ideas how to fix that?
On a production database, 11gR2, I have exported everything via Sql Developer, file.sql. I just took all the defaults.
I have a test server with 11gR2 I am going to copy the .sql dump file over to.
Is there anything contained in a export, the one with everything in it, all the objects, data, and so on, that would cause problems for the production environment when I import the data into the test environment?
In other words, I don't want to break my production. I don't have tnsnames.ora set up on my test. I only want the schema, data, all the rest mentioned.
EDIT:
SELECT * FROM DBA_SCHEDULER_WINDOWS;
Showed nothing active.
DBA_JOBS
shows APEX jobs about the mail, stock jobs I think. One about, EMD_MAINTENANCE.EXECUTE_EM_DBMS_JOB_PROCS();
SELECT * FROM DBA_DB_LINKS;
There is a link. But, I know what it is from and it is no longer being used.
Thanks for the info you gave. I feel better now.
The standard things I would think of are:
use another system (not the same VM/server as production)
disable all DBA_SCHEDULER_JOBS and don't enable them back until you review their code
disable all DBA_JOBS and don't enable them back until you review their code
point DBA_DB_LINKS (both public and private database links) from the production databases to corresponding test databases or delete them; these sometimes use tnsnames.ora, but sometimes bypass it.
I have a test method, using NUnit and Selenium, which opens a browser on our website which is on the Production Server and registers a user and verifies that the registration is successful.
(I know ideally the system tests should run on a separate Test Server rather than production but here they want to test whether the prod system works!)
The problem is how to rollback the database changes as a result of this test? For example, the state of my database before and after running the state should be the same.
I thought of 3 possible options but none is practical:
1) writing SQL queries to delete from the actual tables before starting the test (Setup) and after running the test (TearDown); this is my current approach however
The problem with this approach is that I have to know exactly which tables were involved for each System Test which runs and this can quickly become very complex as a test may impact more than one table.
2) Writing transactional Code
This is not an option since the code changes are done by the website, not by the unit test written.
3) Getting an snapshot of existing database (SQL Server 2008 R2) before each test starts then after the test finished, restoring the snapshot to the original one.
This idea sounds good to me if we could run the tests only on Staging environment but the problem is that the tests have to run on Production and may take like 5 minutes totally so rolling it back and restoring it, would be a stupid idea as the changes done in that 5 minutes would be lost!
Please advise what approach would be best possible option to resolve this problem? there may be a 4th option?
Thanks,
Option 4 never ever ever ever do tests on a production server it's a recipe for disaster (see thousands of funny (if you are not the protagonist) stories on the internet on how this could go horribly wrong), the right thing to do would be to configure the test and production server in the same way.
There is a fith option. If the website receives a registration for user "WeAreTestingOutSite" it does everything except for actually adding the user to the Database.
To be honest, as was said, there are better ways to test if a production site is still in operation than to run bots to register a user to make sure it is working (or operational).
I would recommend you going with 4th option: Introduce new feature which allows to delete the user. Probably not to the user himself/herself but to the system admins (Backoffice users). That way you can test if user can be registered - and deleted afterwards while not caring that much about the SQL scripts.