http://nhforge.org/blogs/nhibernate/archive/2008/12/15/customizing-schema-export-with-schema-action.aspx
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Will Shaver <[email protected]> wrote: > Committed -> Revision 3954, closing NH1661, NH 1274. > > schema-action="none|drop|export|update|validate|all" > > Tests are passing etc. The only part that I'm not certain about is > Joined subclasses and other tricky mapping situations. I haven't ever > used those so I didn't know how to test them correctly. If someone who > uses those and would like to not export them could take a look that > would be great. Otherwise, it works great for the Views that I was > mapping. > > -Will > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'm sorry... my fault. >> "validate" is the right value for the new attribute. >> >> 2008/12/15 Will Shaver <[email protected]> >>> >>> Because the tool and the method are called 'validate' instead of >>> 'verify' I am going to go with 'validate' as the xml keyword. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Tuna Toksöz <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Verify is a newly added tool. SchemaValidator is the name, in Tools >>> > namespace. >>> > And yes ValidateSchema is what is used in that. >>> > >>> > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:04 PM, Will Shaver <[email protected]> >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Ok, am doing the work to switch this over now based on your feedback. >>> >> >>> >> Update, export and drop are easy to implement and I think I have those >>> >> done and working. I'm writing test cases to make sure. >>> >> >>> >> What do you mean by 'verify'? Do you mean Configuration.cs Like 1985 >>> >> -> ValidateSchema? >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> > Related to this issue we have probably something else... >>> >> > Do someone can check if catalog+schema is well supported in each >>> >> > schema-action ? >>> >> > Thanks. >>> >> > >>> >> > 2008/12/13 Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> I am inclined to agree with this suggestionl; I had the same thought >>> >> >> when >>> >> >> reading this thread: what about the rest of the other schema-related >>> >> >> ops? >>> >> >> It would be great if we had a more extensible approach to this (as >>> >> >> you >>> >> >> are >>> >> >> proposing here) that would also allow for easily adding support for >>> >> >> any >>> >> >> MORE >>> >> >> schema-related ops that might be introduced in the future too. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> BTW, I think it would be great to get something like this into NH -- >>> >> >> the >>> >> >> awkwardness of handling mapped view during schema-gen has been a >>> >> >> nuisance I >>> >> >> have battled with on several projects (and we have dealt with it by >>> >> >> using >>> >> >> custom sql in the create/drop sections of the mappings but this >>> >> >> always >>> >> >> felt >>> >> >> like a hack). This approach (Will's combined with Fabio's >>> >> >> suggestion) >>> >> >> seems >>> >> >> much more elegant. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> -Steve B. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 6:26 AM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> >>> >> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> I Will. >>> >> >>> We have various tools involving the schema: >>> >> >>> - Export >>> >> >>> - Drop >>> >> >>> - Update >>> >> >>> - Verify >>> >> >>> What about something like the follow: >>> >> >>> <classe name="Something" schema-action="export, drop, update, >>> >> >>> verify"> >>> >> >>> The schema-action attribute can work like the "cascade" attribute >>> >> >>> as a >>> >> >>> multiple choice. >>> >> >>> All possible values of schema-action will be: none, all, export, >>> >> >>> drop, >>> >> >>> update, verify >>> >> >>> Default value is : all >>> >> >>> Thought ? >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> 2008/12/12 Will Shaver <[email protected]> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> A while back I asked about means to exclude a table from the >>> >> >>>> schema >>> >> >>>> export. As this wasn't possible, I've now added it to my version >>> >> >>>> of >>> >> >>>> the >>> >> >>>> trunk. Before I commit I wanted to run it by people. Currently I >>> >> >>>> have >>> >> >>>> it set >>> >> >>>> up as follows: >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> Tables are included by default. (As before.) >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> Tables mapped as: >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> < >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> class name="Products" exportable="false"> >>> >> >>>> ... >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> Will not be published in either the 'Drop Table' or the 'Create >>> >> >>>> Table' >>> >> >>>> commands from the schema export tool. This solves Jira issue 1274. >>> >> >>>> I >>> >> >>>> have >>> >> >>>> this working including the modification to the >>> >> >>>> xsd/Hbm.generated.cs >>> >> >>>> files. >>> >> >>>> Is this an acceptable means of excluding certain classes from >>> >> >>>> export? >>> >> >>>> For >>> >> >>>> reference, the reason for doing this could include mapping Views, >>> >> >>>> tables >>> >> >>>> from a different project, tables with existing data to be >>> >> >>>> preserved >>> >> >>>> etc. >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> Your .02c would be useful. >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> -Will >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> -- >>> >> >>> Fabio Maulo >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > -- >>> >> > Fabio Maulo >>> >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Tuna Toksöz >>> > http://tunatoksoz.com >>> > >>> > Typos included to enhance the readers attention! >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Fabio Maulo >> >
