I'm closing this bug report. If there's further work on this, please
submit a merge proposal.

** Changed in: zeitgeist
       Status: In Progress => Fix Released

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Zeitgeist
Framework Team, which is subscribed to Zeitgeist Framework.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/784011

Title:
  clean up sql.py

Status in Zeitgeist Framework:
  Fix Released

Bug description:
  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, 
constants.CORE_SCHEMA_VERSION)
  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 
scheme
  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 
t/sql_upgrade
  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 
                   solution* (tm)
  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 
upgrades atm

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/zeitgeist/+bug/784011/+subscriptions

_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~zeitgeist
Post to     : zeitgeist@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~zeitgeist
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Reply via email to