Assumption: live/production web app suppresses errors being shown to end-users.
Suppose your tech support team wants to see live data but through the eyes of the development-side of the application (maybe you want to see what errors are occurring, or want to see when you've got an issue fixed using an end-user's data).
Right now we've got one database serving both the dev and live boxes (not my idea - I know it's gross).
Ideas?
Edit: Best/handy tools for implementing your suggestion?
We replicate the data back to a different database. Yes, there is a delay, but it keeps people hands out of the production servers. This also allows us to "hide" information that tech support (and other people for that matter) aren't supposed to see.
In addition to replicating data down, on production, we see who's logged into the application, and if it's a member of the company, send them to the real error page versus the happy kitten playing with a ball of yarn apologizing.
Back up and restore from live to dev on a regular basis (once, twice a day). It doesn't need to be realtime (as you might be entering data from the dev side anyway, which could cause problems).
If you have PCI or HIPAA data, make sure you don't put that in your dev environment -- that might break laws.
I generally like to have a 3-tier system for web development:
Development
Testing
Live
Most of the time testing is an exact copy of the live system, except that errors are turned on, when a new version is about to be moved live it's replaced with the new version BEFORE live is, to detect upgrade issues.
Development is completely separate from live, to allow for major changes to things like the database, or changes to the production environment.
I would firstly make errors are either emailed to someone with details of how the user got there or at minimum logged so you can watch the error log while you perform similar actions to see if you get the same messages in the log.
And yes, copying the database on the dev server/site is probably your only option. You don't want any changes made by the development team to live data and you'll probably also have changes that won't work with the production database at some point.
I wouldn't recommend doing a nightly copy as a developer might be in the middle of some new feature where they have added data and then it's erased that night. I usually copy the production database(s) to dev each time a major version is released. This also allows me to do speed testing with a lot of live data. On some systems I also change everyones password to a default so I can login easily as any user.
If your configuration permits it:
a. Add a logging function (if there isn't one already) to write messages of interest to a log file.
b. Run the unix command
tail -f < logfile.txt
which will stream the growing log file to your console.
http://www.monkey.org/cgi-bin/man2html?tail
If you have Windows, you might try this:
http://tailforwin32.sourceforge.net/
Related
My site is messed up and I am trying to fix it, and regardless of it I get help, it is going to take awhile likely, and it's really important that my site be live, even if it's a crappy version with just the articles and no template.
Would it not work to make a backup of the database, install Joomla fresh (the same version) and connect it to that duplicate database (then point my domain there) and then go back to working on fixing the current site that is live now? Are there any issues I should know about going in? There's a good chance the issues are related to the template or extensions (at least my understanding so far, see my other post for details on the issue) so I would think it would be faster to do this to get a working site rather than trying to turn off and on each extension, especially when I have to do it manually (and I don't know how yet) as I can't access the backend.
If this will work, do I choose the database when I install or just install empty and then change what database it connects to or do i install empty and import the tables (and how)? Still have to figure out if I can make a clone of the database and not all the files as it takes hours.
Thanks for the help, and if I should have appended this to the other post I apologize, but I figured its a separate issue.
First, ensure you have backups of both the files and the database. Then make a local copy of your site where you will work later.
The infection may lie:
in the Joomla core files, with extra content (which is usually fairly easy to spot, for example an eval of a large base64-encoded variable);
in extra files (keep in mind that even images could contain malicious code), these would be usually triggered outside of Joomla for spamming or other nefarious purposes
in the database content.
Fix:
Apply a fresh Joomla update package over your site; you will only fix n.1 above. This may restore some functionality for the first hour of survival.
Analyse the logs, and try to figure out how they got in. You need to step up security as obviously what you have is not enough.
Install a fresh Joomla, add all extensions that your site uses, copy the images folder, then connect it to a copy of the compromised database. This will fix n.1 and 2 above (as you got rid of any extra files). This may survive until they figure out you fixed it; but if you haven't patched your security, they will hack into your site again. Keep a copy of this, and restore as needed as you proceed with the following step.
Export the db to sql format (mysqldump or phpmyadmin may come in handy), then search for any xss traces, php code, javascripts that may have been injected. Since a complete control could take days, and assuming the malicious code links elsewhere, look for strings such as "https://" and "http://"; escape / as \/ and \\\/ to account for json-encoded data as well.
Once the db is clean, your local copy is reasonably safe; update all extensions and Joomla, and use it to restore the website until you fix your security.
It might work, i mean cloning the DB as far as joomla version is the same. It won't break like that, but may fail if files for extensions are not found. This is somewhat wrong, the question is how many extensions you are using and how much cleansing you need.
On the other side you mention that the site should be 'live'. Just do everything on localhost, test, fix templates, etc. Then if you're sure you're done, use akeeba backup and deploy new version to your server without long delays.
Any kind of cleansing needs some start.
You can clean the site while live, depends on complexity.
Clean might be done offline and deployed.
Sometimes import/export custom routines are needed, so you have to make own tools for everything. It occurs with large data, like when people used to made mess inside images folder or something like that.
4 ...
It's pointless to make copies of DB. You install the same version of Joomla on your local server, then you install the same template, you copy styles etc.
Then you import data with your own tools or paid ones. Estimated time is from few hours to few days, it's just data :)
I modified a page layout in our QA environment using Apex and didn't refresh from the server (my last refresh from the server was 10 days ago). Someone else made a TON of changes using the web interface in between then. I just overwrote all of her changes!
Does anyone have any advice on how I can undo my changes and go back to hers?
Unfortunately there's no tracking of layout changes so there's no way you can just revert this — are there any other developers who may have had a later copy of the metadata and haven't refreshed theirs yet?
It can be a good idea to use ANT to run a metadata backup system so that things like this don't cause problems :) There's a guide to using the Force.com Deployment Tool here, essentially you just want to use half of that process on a regular schedule.
OK, so I did the dumb thing and released production code (C#, VS2010) that targeted our development database (SQL Server 2008 R2). Luckily we are not using the production database yet so I didn't have the pain of trying to recover and synchronize everything...
But, I want to prevent this from happening again when it could be much more painful. My idea is to add a table I can query at startup and determine what database I am connected to by the value returned. Production would return "PROD" and dev and test would return other values, for example.
If it makes any difference, the application talks to a WCF service to access the database so I have endpoints in the config file, not actual connection strings.
Does this make sense? How have others addressed this problem?
Thanks,
Dave
The easiest way to solve this is to not have access to production accounts. Those are stored in the Machine.config file for our .net applications. In non-.net applications this is easily duplicated, by having a config file in a common location, or (dare I say) a registry entry which holds the account information.
Most of our servers are accessed through aliases too, so no one really needs to change the connection string from environment to environment. Just grab the user from the config and the server alias in the hosts file points you to the correct server. This also removes the headache from us having to update all our config files when we switch db instances (change hardware etc.)
So even with the click once deployment and the end points. You can publish the a new endpoint URI in a machine config on the end users desktop (I'm assuming this is an internal application), and then reference that in the code.
If you absolutely can't do this, as this might be a lot of work (last place I worked had 2000 call center people, so this push was a lot more difficult, but still possible). You can always have an automated build server setup which modifies the app.config file for you as a last step of building the application for you. You then ALWAYS publish the compiled code from the automated build server. Never have the change in the app.config for something like this be a manual step in the developer's process. This will always lead to problems at some point.
Now if none of this works, your final option (done this one too), which I hated, but it worked is to look up the value off of a mapped drive. Essentially, everyone in the company has a mapped drive to say R:. This is where you have your production configuration files etc. The prod account people map to one drive location with the production values, and the devs etc. map to another with the development values. I hate this option compared to the others, but it works, and it can save you in a pinch with others become tedious and difficult (due to say office politics, setting up a build server etc.).
I'm assuming your production server has a different name than your development server, so you could simply SELECT ##SERVERNAME AS ServerName.
Not sure if this answer helps you in a assumed .net environment, but within a *nix/PHP environment, this is how I handle the same situation.
OK, so I did the dumb thing and released production code
There are a times where some app behavior is environment dependent, as you eluded to. In order to provide this ability to check between development and production environments I added the following line to global /etc/profile/profile.d/custom.sh config (CentOS):
SERVICE_ENV=dev
And in code I have a wrapper method which will grab an environment variable based on name and localize it's value making it accessible to my application code. Below is a snippet demonstrating how to check the current environment and react accordingly (in PHP):
public function __call($method, $params)
{
// Reduce chatter on production envs
// Only display debug messages if override told us to
if (($method === 'debug') &&
(CoreLib_Api_Environment_Package::getValue(CoreLib_Api_Environment::VAR_LABEL_SERVICE) === CoreLib_Api_Environment::PROD) &&
(!in_array(CoreLib_Api_Log::DEBUG_ON_PROD_OVERRIDE, $params))) {
return;
}
}
Remember, you don't want to pepper your application logic with environment checks, save for a few extreme use cases as demonstrated with snippet. Rather you should be controlling access to your production databases using DNS. For example, within your development environment the following db hostname mydatabase-db would resolve to a local server instead of your actual production server. And when you push your code to the production environment, your DNS will correctly resolve the hostname, so your code should "just work" without any environment checks.
After hours of wading through textbooks and tutorials on MSBuild and app.config manipulation, I stumbled across something called SlowCheetah - XML Transforms http://visualstudiogallery.msdn.microsoft.com/69023d00-a4f9-4a34-a6cd-7e854ba318b5 that did what I needed it to do in less than hour after first stumbling across it. Definitely recommended! From the article:
This package enables you to transform your app.config or any other XML file based on the build configuration. It also adds additional tooling to help you create XML transforms.
This package is created by Sayed Ibrahim Hashimi, Chuck England and Bill Heibert, the same Hashimi who authored THE book on MSBuild. If you're looking for a simple ubiquitous way to transform your app.config, web.config or any other XML fie based on the build configuration, look no further -- this VS package will do the job.
Yeah I know I answered my own question but I already gave points to the answer that eventually pointed me to the real answer. Now I need to go back and edit the question based on my new understanding of the problem...
Dave
I' assuming yout production serveur has a different ip address. You can simply use
SELECT CONNECTIONPROPERTY('local_net_address') AS local_net_address
I want to take on a project, but I’m not sure how to handle the updating process.
Normally, when asked to update a site, you back-up the database & site files, then make the updates locally or on a development server. Then when the updates are finished, you push them live.
My problem is that the site I’ll be working on registers new members every day, makes blog posts every day, and gets new comments on those posts every day. If I were to pull the site on Monday, update it in a testing environment, then push those changes live on Friday, every member who signed up and blog entry written during the week would be overwritten.
So what’s the best way to go about doing this? How do I update/add features to a site without losing the data gained on the live site during development? Surely it must be possible, since high-traffic sites like TechCrunch and Gizmodo make huge sitewide updates all the time without losing data.
It depends on what changes you're making. Is it file/template changes or database changes?
If it's just file changes, just pull the files and database to your local server, make changes to your files and then just push them (files only) to the live server when done. As long as no database changes have happened, that will work.
If there are db changes, things get a bit trickier. You would basically follow the same process, but make note of any db changes you are making on the local site. when everything is ready to be pushed to the live server, you have no other option but to take the site offline for users while you update.
You would then push all updated files to live server, and mirror any db changes you did on the local server (install/update plugins etc). When all that is done and tested, you can then put the site online again. Downtime should be minimal if you have made good notes on db changes.
This is dependant on being able to block access to users but still allow access for yourself, but that's standard with most CMSs.
Also, if you dont already you should look at integrating git into your workflow. If the changes you'll be making take a considerable amount of time you'll need a system in place where you can branch your code off into new versions while still keeping the original state of code that's on the live server.
That way, if there is an urgent fix that needs doing to the live site while your in the middle of developing new features locally, you can switch back to your master/original branch and make changes to the code that doesn't include any of the new stuff you have been working on the other branch.
Well, I've only done this for small traffic wordpress/drupal sites, but not having a "live" version hasn't been an issue for me. I have my development copy, make test the changes I want, and then roll those changes out to the live site on the fly by FTPing' them back up.
Are you going to be editing these registrations? Or are you just tweaking static files?
In the case of wordpress, I test a plugin out, and then just install it on the live site.
Typically the changes I'm making involve plugins/modules and some PHP stuff. This is obviously not the most nuanced solution, and I'm interested to see what more knowledgeable people have in mind.
We are building a webapp which is shipped to several client as a debian package. Each client runs his own server. But the update and support is done by us.
We make regular releases of the product, with a clean version number. Most of the users get an automatic update (by Puppet), some others don't.
We want to keep a trace of the version of the application (in order to allow the user to check the version in an "about" section, and for our support to help the user more accurately).
We plan to store the version of the code and the version of the base in our database, and to keep the info up to date automatically.
Is that a good idea ?
The other alternative we see is a file.
EDIT : The code and database schema are updated together. ( if we update to version x.y.z , both code and database go to x.y.z )
Using a table to track every change to a schema as described in this post is a good practice that I'd definitely suggest to follow.
For the application, if it is shipped independently of the database (which is not clear to me), I'd embed a file in the package (and thus not use the database to store the version of the web application).
If not and thus if both the application and the database versions are maintained in sync, then I'd just use the information stored in the database.
As a general rule, I would have both, DB version and application version. The problem here is how "private" is the database. If the database is "private" to the application, and user never modifies the schema then your initial solution is fine. In my experience, databases which accumulate several years of data stop being private, it means that users add a table or two and access data using some reporting tool; from that point on the database is not exclusively used by the application any more.
UPDATE
One more thing to consider is users (application) not being able to connect to the DB and calling for support. For this case it would be better to have version, etc.. stored on file system.
Assuming there are no compelling reasons to go with one approach or the other, I think I'd go with keeping them in the database.
I'd put them in both places. Then when running your about function you quickly check that they are both the same, and if they aren't you can display extra information about the version mismatch. If they're the same then you will only need to display one of them.
I've generally found users can do "clever" things like revert databases back to old versions by manually copying directories around "because they can" so defensively dealing with it is always a good idea.