Petri, that sounds like the kind of thing I was hoping someone looking into it would find... not sure what "property" they are referring to here - is this something we could put into... TenantDatabaseUpgradeService is guess where this would go. Fancy putting a PR together, perhaps?
Sergio, would you be interested in contributing to the project by helping to such a PR, if you still have or can build an "old" database? On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 9:31 PM Petri Tuomola <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi > > Looking at the Flyway documentation, I think a possible solution to this > would be to set the property flyway.table to point to “schema_version". > > That way existing installations would not be broken by the Flyway upgrade, > as Flyway would continue to use the same table name. > > At least that’s the suggestion from the commit where this change was made > to Flyway: > > " You are seeing this message because Flyway > changed its default for flyway.table in" + > " version 5.0.0 to flyway_schema_history and you > are still relying on the old default (schema_version)." + > " Set flyway.table=schema_version in your > configuration to fix this." + > > Just an idea… > > Regards > Petri > > On 15 May 2020, at 10:15 PM, Michael Vorburger <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sergio, > > Thank you for having shared this with the developer list. Feedback like > this is a great way to contribute to the project. > > This sounds like it could be due to our recent upgrade of the Flyway > library itself, see https://jira.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-810. I > do find it kind of funny that a tool made to facilitate seamless database > upgrades makes a breaking non-compatible schema change itself... ;-) > > I guess it would be much nicer if we could fix this to remain compatible. > Noticing how https://flywaydb.org/getstarted/how says (quote) "a database > with a single empty table called *flyway_schema_history* **by default**" > to me makes it sound like it may be possible to override and change this so > that it's like before... would someone like to look more into trying that, > testing this, and contributing a Pull Request with a solution? I've opened > new https://jira.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-979 to track this. > > Best, > M. > _______________________ > Michael Vorburger > http://www.vorburger.ch > > > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 11:02 AM Awasum Yannick <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yes, alot of updates have been made over the past few months. >> >> Flyway was upgraded along with support for java 11. The DB names were >> also changed few weeks ago. >> >> Check the readme for others having problems with latest Fineract 1.x on >> the develop branch. >> >> >> >> On Fri, May 15, 2020, 04:56 Sergio Junior <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Renaming the schema_version table to flyway_schema_history seems to have >>> worked. >>> >>> Em qui., 14 de mai. de 2020 às 22:57, Sergio Junior <[email protected]> >>> escreveu: >>> >>>> Dears, >>>> >>>> We were using the docker version from March dont know exactly which one >>>> it was because theres no tags, just the "latest". >>>> Now we updated the image from docker but the database is not >>>> compatible, the Flyway cannot apply migrations because theres no schema >>>> history table. >>>> >>>> Theres any way to apply the migrations? >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Atenciosamente, >>> Sergio Luiz Miziara Junior >>> Tel.: (011) 8727.6447 >>> >> >
