I'm afraid I don't understand the issue. It sounds like you have concerns that your SQLAlchemy models do not always correspond to the state of the DB?
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015, at 03:07 AM, Ofir Herzas wrote: > I've been working with sqlalchemy/alembic for several years now, but just > recently stumbled on an important issue. > > Here is how I use to work: > 1. Issue > Base.metadata.create_all(engine) > to make sure that missing tables are created > > 2. check the current revision by issuing > context.get_current_revision() > > 3. running > command.stamp > or > command.upgrade > if the revision is the latest or not respectively > > This worked well up until the point where I needed to change a table name > since create_all created a new table and then upgrade just failed. > > Issuing create_all after the upgrade isn't an option also since changes > to > missing tables will also fail. > > What is the proper way of doing this? Before I run to add a create_table > in > each revision I had, I wanted to check if there's a better way of > handling > things. > > What's your opinion? If table rename is the only problem with my first > take, is there a way to exclude a table from create_all using a 'filter' > function? (that way, I could add a property to the model stating it's > previous name as check for that property in the 'filter' function... > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sqlalchemy-alembic" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy-alembic" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
