< thekorn> I know we had a good reason to do it this way, but I cannot remember
which, let me think about it a bit
We do. The upgrade scripts rely on all that being run afterwards, to re-create
the event view as well as create any new index, etc. I like it being this way
since it avoids duplicating code in them...
Better test cases sound great.
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Zeitgeist
Framework Team, which is subscribed to Zeitgeist Framework.
clean up sql.py
Status in Zeitgeist Framework:
There are quite a few clean-ups that are possibly in sql.py.
I've already made a few of these cleanups, but some more complex one's would
have to rely on better sql tests:
10:16 < jplacerda> thekorn: back to sql.py... :) In create_db if the database
is not new, and it is up to date, then the cursor is returned immediately
10:17 < jplacerda> However, the code in check_core_schema_upgrade only
returns True if it is already upgraded prior to entering the function
10:17 < jplacerda> False is returned if: 1) the database does not exist 2)
the database is not up to date prior to entering the database
10:18 < jplacerda> The latter poses a problem, as check_core_schema_upgrade
calls do_schema_upgrade, and the database is upgraded to CORE_SCHEMA_VERSION
10:18 < jplacerda> *but* False is still returned
10:18 < jplacerda> Which means that create_db then tries to insert the same
things again into the table
10:19 < jplacerda> This is a bug, I assume?
10:27 < thekorn> let me have a closer look to the code
10:28 < jplacerda> thekorn: sure. it looks particularly suspicious, as at the
end of create_db you have: _set_schema_version (cursor, constants.CORE_SCHEMA,
10:41 < thekorn> jplacerda: in short: it is not a problem at all, as all SQL
statements in create_db have sth. along "IF NOT EXIST"
10:41 < thekorn> or similar
10:42 < jplacerda> thekorn: agreed, but does it really make sense to go
through all those now that we have upgrade checking?
10:43 < jplacerda> At the end of _do_schema_upgrade it will be good to go
10:43 < jplacerda> Is there a compelling reason not to?
10:49 < jplacerda> I mean, if it is not a problem, then we shouldn't even
have do_schema_upgrade :P
10:50 < jplacerda> It's just that do_schema_upgrade provides a better
incremental picture of what's going on, and is probably faster than running
through all of create_db
10:52 < thekorn> I know we had a good reason to do it this way, but I cannot
remember which, let me think about it a bit
10:53 < jplacerda> thekorn: sure :)
10:55 < jplacerda> thekorn: the only reason I can think of (from looking at
the code) is in case an upgrade fails -- you still get the same db structure
after going through the statements in create_db
10:56 < thekorn> yeah, sth. alog the lines
10:56 < thekorn> along
10:57 < jplacerda> well, now that we have a method of ensuring n -> n+1
works, we can do away with the repetition, and have that code only for new db's
10:58 < thekorn> jplacerda: it's also nicer to maintain, because we knoe that
the sql statements in create_db() represent the up-to-date version of our db
10:58 < thekorn> and we don't have to look at many files to understand how
the current db structure looks like
10:59 < thekorn> ....plus I really don't think it has significant performance
issues this way,
10:59 < thekorn> e.g. impact on startup time
10:59 < jplacerda> thekorn: sure :) I think that the statements in create_db
can be left unchanged, but I think it now makes sense to only have them being
reached by new databases
10:59 < jplacerda> would you agree with this?
11:00 < thekorn> jplacerda: yeah, but this would mean the upgrade scripts
would get more complicated
11:00 < thekorn> e.g. we have to find out which indecies were added (or
removed) at which point
11:00 < thekorn> etc.
11:01 < jplacerda> hmmm
11:01 < thekorn> as we have it right now, the upgrade scripts are mostly all
about upgrading the data
11:01 < jplacerda> But don't you do that already?
11:02 < jplacerda> I mean, the statements in create_db give you an absolute
picture of the current schema
11:02 < thekorn> sorry, what I mean is: if we change it the way you suggest,
we have to go back in history and adjust each upgrade script
11:02 < thekorn> and see if they are really compatible
11:02 < jplacerda> the ones in core_n_n+1 are relative to previous versions
11:02 < jplacerda> I see.
11:02 < jplacerda> What is the best way to test this, then?
11:02 < thekorn> and given that we have no good way to test our upgrade
pathes it might get some realy big pain
11:03 < thekorn> jplacerda: I thought about how we can test it intensively,
and I failed miserably
11:03 < thekorn> the best is to use some sample data
11:03 < jplacerda> ok
11:03 < jplacerda> Should the tests be done in sql.py?
11:03 < thekorn> at different db scheme versions,
11:03 < jplacerda> woops
11:03 < jplacerda> i mean
11:03 < jplacerda> in tests/sql
11:04 < thekorn> jplacerda: I think it would be woth adding a new file
11:04 < thekorn> to get some more structure
11:04 < jplacerda> thekorn: agreed
11:05 < jplacerda> would any tests designed previously have to be moved there?
11:06 < thekorn> but honestly, if you want to work on it, I think having a
kind of testing framework, which generats dbs at a specified version, and tests
upgrades to each other versions would be *the most awesome
11:06 < thekorn> which would scale in a good way for the future
11:07 < thekorn> jplacerda: I don't think so, because we don't have tests for
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~zeitgeist
Post to : firstname.lastname@example.org
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~zeitgeist
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp