Isn't web interface for maintenance imposes security risk? Also web scripts usually are time-limited while shell scripts are not. To update text status of web scripts one has to run batches via json, which is cumbersome. Laravel artisan (shell script) runs composer itself, why maintenance/update.php cannot? I work with Laravel after years of previous working with MediaWiki. Dmitriy
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Ryan Kaldari <[email protected]> wrote: > This may be a dumb question, but has anyone worked on creating a web > interface for running update and maintenance scripts (and viewing > associated logs)? That would probably make the whole process less painful > and confusing for 3rd party users, especially if the interface offered some > guidance on what each script did and when it was last run. > > Kaldari > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Bryan Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 7:40 AM, Tyler Romeo <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I know we just added some new maintenance scripts for checking things > > with composer. I’m sure it wouldn’t be that bad having update.php check > > first and tell the user to run “composer install” before doing > update.php. > > > > > > Kunal made the new "checkComposerLockUpToDate.php" maintenance script > > to validate $IP/vendor against the $IP/composer.json file. An end user > > could either add this to their typical workflow before running > > update.php or we could try to find a reasonable way to integrate the > > check it performs into the update script. Checking for external > > dependencies isn't the same thing at all as updating a database schema > > so I'd lean towards suggesting that the new script be used separately. > > > > > > > On January 13, 2015 at 08:07:34, Marcin Cieslak ([email protected]) > > wrote: > > > > > > I am kind of late to the party but I have upgraded one of > > > my throaway development wikis with the usual > > > "git remote update && git merge && php maintenance/update.php" process > > > and after the above succeeded I was nevertheless greeted by: > > > > > > Fatal error: Class 'Cdb\Reader' not found > > > > > > exception coming out of includes/cache/LocalisationCache.php on line > 1263 > > > > > > It seems that I just forgot to update the "vendor" directory > > > (I am somehow reluctant to run composer due to allow_url_fopen=1) > > > requirement > > > > > > Would that be reasonable to add some basic external libraries > > > checks to update.php to remind users to update those core > > > components prior to accessing the wiki? > > > > > > Btw. I think UPGRADE doc does not (yet) mention the new process. > > > > I think that Kunal's thinking on this (Composer and UPGRADE) was that > > when the 1.25 tarballs are released they will likely bundle the > > required libraries directly and thus use of Composer will not be > > needed by the end user. There is a sentence in the Git subsection of > > <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Upgrading> mentioning the > > external library dependency: > > > If you are upgrading to MediaWiki 1.25 or later, you will also need to > > install some external libraries. See the documentation on that for more > > details. > > > > Maybe that needs a bit more emphasis on the wiki page? > > > > Bryan > > -- > > Bryan Davis Wikimedia Foundation <[email protected]> > > [[m:User:BDavis_(WMF)]] Sr Software Engineer Boise, ID USA > > irc: bd808 v:415.839.6885 x6855 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikitech-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
