EDITED: from original as frankly it was a poor question first time around....
We have a batch script called DEV.DBDeployment.DropCustomCreate.bat, as the name suggests this drops and creates our db from a fresh, a useful tool in Dev but we don't always want to drop the database, sometimes just get the latest changes.
It's worth noting currently every CI checkin triggers a build in TeamCity which pumps the current Major.Minor.BuildNumber.Revision (e.g. 1.0.123.1568) number in to all AssemblyInfo.cs files within all Visual Studio projects. This obviously allows us to stamp the resultant dll's with the build number, pretty standard stuff for sure. We also overwrite a BuildInfo.txt file in a similar way, most importantly this BuildInfo.txt file is included within every deployment package and sits within the RoundhousE\deployment folder and is referenced by /vf=%version.file% when we run rh.exe as mentioned above from the .bat file. So we're sorted for deploying to existing databases in Test and Prod.
However in dev the AssemblyVersion is always 0.0.0.0 in AssemblyInfo.cs, as is the version number in BuildInfo.txt, therefore how do devs stage their changes locally against their database. For example, with this setup when we run rh.exe all changes will be stamped with the version number 0.0.0.0. Is the expectation that in dev you will always drop and create? If that's the case I'm assuming we need TeamCity to checkin the BuildInfo.txt file so RoundhousE can reference it from source control when executed in dev?
Is there something I'm missing here?
I think we discussed this over here - https://github.com/chucknorris/roundhouse/issues/113
As you saying about the .bat file; that is a tool for roundhouse. You have to run that batch file again and again when you want to run your scripts. If you want to run scripts when you build the roundhouse database project then you have to configure that with certain steps. If you wish I can tell you if you replied.
Related
I have created database project in visual studio 2013 from existing database. Then I have done lot of changes in database project like modify stored procedures, post deployment script, table structure, etc . Now database project is ready to deploy. But I am worry if any script fails then How I can retain the original state though it build properly.
Please suggest that if any query fails then I want ROLLBACK the all changes that I have made in database project.
Firstly you need to trust your tools and either believe they will work or find other tools.
While you are building the trust I would add a create backup to the pre-deployment script or run a backup before you deploy then if anything goes wrong you can restore and figure out what went wrong.
As David said to roll-back, you would get the previously deployed dacpac and generate a new deployment script from that but fixing forward is almost always the correct thing to do rather than rolling back to a previous version.
ed
Have you been checking your changes into version control? If so, all you need to do is to revert back to the last known good version.
Or... simply work out why it's failing now and fix the root cause?
I used Db projects some time ago and as far as I remember the deploy script was wrapped in a transaction. It is possible to generate sql script without executing it. That setting was somewhere in DB project settings. You can take a look inside that script and make sure that it'll rollback on error.
Doing a backup would still be a recommended practice especially when you deploy to production.
when working on important scripts I developed a habit of always starting a transaction and commenting out the commit.
If you accidentally run it, it won't take effect. The commented out commit would only come out when the thing was done.
While this answer indicates that you CAN revert in source control (Assuming SSDT at this point) it would be nice to get a pointer to the exact process to do this. On a file by file basis the history works the same but how to revert the entire database at once isn't immediately obvious.
To start with some background, I am a member of a small team developing an ASP.NET application. In addition to us, there are 2 other teams working on it, all from different countries. Source code is hosted on a shared SVN server but there is no central testing environment. Each developer runs the app on their own machine and data services are set up per team.
Unfortunately our SVN workflow has some gaps in it: annoyances arise when there is time for an SVN update.
It is mainly because each developer and team have slightly different environments in terms of disk directory structure and configuration (both IIS and app itself). Hence conflicts in configuration files and elsewhere that in essence are not conflicts at all - for runtime configuration (XML) and in *.suo.
How should we handle this if our objective is to keep checkout, app setup and update as painless as possible?
One option would obviously be master copies. Another one establishing uniformity in developer environments and keeping it. But what about a third alternative?
One thing to do is to not put the .suo files into SVN, there's no reason to do that.
For IIS configuration there should be no argument - uniform environment across the build team.
For app.config files and the like, I tend to keep them in a separate "cfg" directory in the root of the project and use pre-build events to copy in the relevant ones I need depending on the project and environment I'm working on.
You could have a separate build task to copy in user-specific config into your output directory. Add a new directory in your root project called "user.config or something, and leave it empty. Then configure your project build to check this for entries and copy them to the output directory. This is easy to do, and then each dev can have their own config without affecting the master copies. Just make sure you have an ignore pattern on that folder so you don't commit user-specific configuration. If you have svnadmin access to your source code repo, you could set a hook to prevent it from ever happening.
Also set ignore patterns on your root directory (recursively) for .suo, .user, _Resharper or any other extensions you think are pertinent. There are some So questions already on exactly this topic:
Best general SVN Ignore Pattern?
Ignore *.suo and *.user files in svn. It is easy. After that create two types of config files in subversion. Development and Server, if in use add Test also. See below example.
ConnectionStringDevelopment.config
ConnectionStringServer.config
AppSettingsDevelopment.config
AppSettingsServer.config
Server files would contain server information. Development files is not contained in svn and ignored there. Every new developer will start by copying server files and making changes according to his environment.
Look following example site
http://code.google.com/p/karkas/source/browse/trunk/Karkas.Ornek/WebSite/web.config
following lines are interest.
<appSettings configSource="appSettingsDevelopment.config"/>
<connectionStrings configSource="ConnectionStringsDevelopment.config" />
ConfigSource can be used almost everywhere in web.config therefore you will be able to change every config to every developer. Only make use of following naming convention. ignore *Development.config in subversion. This way no developer config will be added to subversion.
Its not a perfect solution (and should only be used if there are not many of those special files), but what I do is to add fake files for each case, and switch the real file locally to it.
In detail: I have a file foo that creates the problem. I also create foo_1 and foo_2 and then locally switch foo to foo_1 (I use tortoisesvn, so I cant really give you the command line to do that). Then I am working on foo on my machine, but actually commit to foo_1. Other parties could then switch to foo_2...
(I admit this is basically a variant of the master-file approach you suggested yourself; but if there are not many actual changes to those files this at least reduces the numer of conflicts you have to think about)
I have an SQL 2008 database project in Visual Studio 2010 that is sync'ed on a regular basis from a schema comparison during the development phase. This same project is also under TFS source control. I have two environments, Debug and Production. Each environment is a single machine that runs both IIS and SQL Server. The production environment however has different data and log paths for the database D:\Data\ and E:\Logs\ versus my development server at the standard c:\program files\sql....\data.
What I'm trying to do is setup the way I transact my deployments from the debug to production environments. I've gotten WebDeploy 2.1 setup and I build my deployment packages in Visual Studio via the right-click context menu on the website project. I want to manually copy deployment packages to the production server via RDP, so there's no over the wire concerns here. The deployment package settings are setup to include all databases configured in Package/Publish SQL tab. In the Package/Publish SQL tab I don't pull data from data/schema from an existing database because I want to deploy from the SQL database project instead. So I just point to the pre-generated .sql script file located in my database project's /sql/release folder. To top it off, I generate the .sql script in the post-build events in the SQL project via VSDBCMD.exe /dd:- /a:Deploy /manifest:... so that a simple solution rebuild all, then website project deploy ensures I always have the latest .sql script in the deployment package.
This is great and all, but I have a major problem here I can't seem to overcome. It has to do with the database data and log files paths being different from debug to production environments. I actually receive an exception during the WebDeploy in IIS on the production server that says it can't find c:\programs files...\MyDatabase.mdf file. And what's scarey is after this exception, the entire database is deleted. The empty databases I create right before doing the deployment. Happen both times I tried messing around with it. I'm not sure how I feel about that, but I'm hoping I could find a reliable solution to this.
I have been feverishly looking for a way to change the paths during a deployment and have found many places that mention changing the paths in the *.sqlfiles.sql files under Schema Objects\Database level objects\Storage\Files because the path it tries to deploy to is the path specified in those because of the Schema Comparisons and Writes from the Debug SQL server database. Changing the paths here will work temporarily, until I do my next schema comparison and write, then the sqlfiles.sql files will get overwritten with the info from the Debug database again. And I don't want to have to remember to never update these files during a schema comparison because any mistake has the potential to delete the production database.
I think my salvation lies in my Release.sqlcmdvars file. It's a tease actually, I can see a place I "could" type the default database path, but it appears to a read-only field as it mentions "Location where database files are created by default (set when you deploy)." It would be grand if I could specify the paths here. Is there any way at all to specify the path in a variable here that would override the paths from the *.sqlfiles.sql files?
In the solution where I work at, there are two custom variables in the sqlcmdvars called Path1 and Path2 that I thought were reserved names that do such that. However, this doesn't work in my solution and the difference between the two solutions are the other solution gets deployed via TFS build controller. Doing the TFS build controller route isn't an option really because I opted out to save money while using a third party source control service.
Any help with this would be great. I have even gone so far as to create separate *.sqlfiles.sql files for debug and release and configured the dbproj file to use one or the other depending on the Configuration, but this doesn't seem to be working either. Also, using the custom PATH1 variable in the sqlfile.sql file like FILENAME = '$(PATH1)\Cameleon_log.ldf', doesn't work either. I seriously think it shouldn't be this difficult. Am I missing something simple here??
Thanks!
Okay, this was an exercise in futility. Apparently with out syncing with the target database during the script generation the script would be exactly what is needed to build the database from scratch. Even if I could override the file paths, the deployment would complain about database objects already existing. I needed to specify the connection string of the target database in the deploy settings so a comparison is done during the script generation and only the relevant differences are added to the script. I really wanted to avoid exposing my production SQL server to the outside world, but it is what it is. No need to override the paths anymore because it looks the database file paths are conveniently ignored during this comparison!!
I'm using the Database project in visual studio 2010 to generate a script to deploy my database (and it's changes). This works great.
Is there a way to have Visual Studio database project generate a rollback script as well as the deployment script.
I'm not looking for rolling back the transaction while deploying; but say I deploy it and my stored procedure has an overlooked performance issue that comes up a week later that requires a rollback to the previous version of the database.
Is there a way to generate the rollback script at build/deploy time that will undo whatever changes the deployment script made.
EDIT: If we ignore that I'm using a database project: What is a good way to have an upgrade and downgrade path for a database generated?
This generation needs to be part of an automated build process.
To create a rollback script While doing a schema compare using VS2010, It is as simple as swapping the db names specified in the source and target.
This way VS2010 would create a rollback script which would have drop statements against your stored proc.
I've not seen anything like that.
I think you need to reconsider this approach, as you'd still need to fix the stored proc in your database project, otherwise you'd just be re-deploying the "bad" version the next time you deploy. (I'm sure you're already aware of that, but it doesn't help to point out the obvious sometimes!)
If you need to restore an old version of the sproc to the server in the mean time, I would have thought that the easiest thing to do would be to get the previous version from source control and manually deploy that.
You could create a backup of the database before the release and then just restore from the backup if things go wrong. Obviously you'd also loose any data changes (either made as part of the release or subsequently) since the backup was taken.
Another idea I had was to create a snapshot before the release. The operation to create a snapshot is very light weight. I'm not sure you'd want to keep the snapshot for a week, but if the release went wrong then I think it would be quicker to restore from a snapshot than from a full backup. I would be interested to hear any comments people have on this idea.
I'll try to make this as straight forward as possible.
Currently our team has a VSS database where our projects are stored.
Developers grab the code and place on their localhost machine and develop locally.
Designated developer grabs latest version and pushes to development server.
The problem is, when a file is removed from the project (by deleting it in VS2008) then the next time another developer (not the one who deleted it) checks in, it prompts them to check in those deleted files because they still have a copy on their local machine.
Is there a way around this? To have VSS instruct the client machine to remove these files and not prompt them to check back in? What is the preferred approach for this?
Edit Note(s):
I agree SVN is better than VSS
I agree Web Application project is better than Web Site project
Problem: This same thing happens with files which are removed from class libraries.
You number one way around this is to stop using web site projects. Web Site Projects cause visual studio to automatically add anything it finds in the project path to the project.
Instead, move to Web Application Projects which don't have this behavior problem.
Web Site projects are good for single person developments.
UPDATE:
VB shops from the days gone past had similiar issues in that whatever they had installed affected the build process. You might take a page from their playbook and have a "clean" build machine. Prior to doing a deployment you would delete all of the project folders, then do a get latest. This way you would be sure that the only thing deployed is what you have in source control.
Incidentally, this is also how the TFS Build server works. It deletes the workspace, then creates a new one and downloads the necessary project files.
Further, you might consider using something like Cruise Control to handle builds.
Maybe the dev should take care to only check in or add things that they have been working on. Its kind of sloppy if they are adding things that they were not even using.
Your best solution would be to switch to a better version control system, like SVN.
At my job we recently acquired a project from an outsourcing company who did use VSS as their version control. We were able to import all of the change history into SVN from VSS, and get up and running pretty quickly with SVN at that point.
And with SVN, you can set up ignores for files and folders, so the files in your web projects dont get put into SVN and the ignore attributes are checked out onto each developer's machine
I believe we used VSSMigrate to do the migration to SVN http://www.poweradmin.com/sourcecode/vssmigrate.aspx
VSS is an awful versioning system and you should switch to SVN but that's got nothing to do with the crux of the problem. The project file contains references to what files are actually part of the project. If the visual studio project isn't checked in along with the changes to it, theres no way for any other developer to be fully updated hence queries to delete files when they grab the latest from VSS. From there you've got multiple choices...
Make the vbproj part of the repository. Any project level changes will be part of the commit and other developers can be notified. Problem here is it's also going to be on the dev server. Ideally you could use near the same process to deploy to dev as you would to deploy as release. This leads into the other way...
SVN gives you hooks for almost all major events, where hooks are literally just a properly named batch file / exe. For your purposes, you could use a post-commit hook to push the appropriate files, say via ftp, to the server on every commit. File problems solved, and more importantly closer towards the concept of continuous integration.
Something you may want to consider doing:
Get Latest (Recursive)
Check In ...
Its a manual process, but it may give you the desired result, plus if VS talks about deleted files, you know they should be deleted from the local machine in step 1.