Goal
We have a MEAN stack application that implements a strict mongoose schema. The MEAN stack app needs to be seeded with data that originates from a SQL Server database. The app should function as expected as long as the seeded data complies with the mongoose schema.
Problem
Currently, the data transfer job is being done through the mongo CLI which does not perform validation. Issues that have come up have been Date objects being saved as strings, missing keys that are required on our schema, entire documents missing, etc. The dev team has lost hours of development time debugging the app and discovering these data issues.
Solution we are looking for
How can we validate data so it:
Throws errors
Fails and halts the transfer
Or gives some other indication that the data is not clean
Disclaimer
I was not part of the data transfer process so I don't have more detail on the specifics of that process.
This is a general problem of what you might call "batch import", "extract-transform-load (ETL)", or "data store migration", disconnected from any particular tech. I'd approach it by:
Export the data into some portable format (e.g. CSV or JSON)
Push the data into the new system through the same validation logic that will handle new data on an ongoing basis.
It's often necessary to modify that logic a bit. For example, maybe your API will autogenerate time stamps for normal operation, but for data import, you want to explicitly set them from the old data source. A more complicated situation would be when there are constraints that cross your models/entities that need to be suspended until all the data is present.
Typically, you write your import script or system to generate a summary of how many records were processed, which ones failed, and why. Then you fix the issues, run it on those remaining records. Repeat until you're happy.
P.S. It's a good idea to version control your import script.
Export to csv and write a small script using node. that will solve your problem. You can use fast-csv npm
I'm adding some testing to my current project which uses Azure blob storage to store telemetry data coming from a stream analytics job. I want to do testing of the routines that get the telemetry data, so I created a separate container for test data. I downloaded a sample set of data, modified the data to serve my needs and re-uploaded (using Azure storage explorer) everything back into the new container.
The tests were immediately failing and I quickly found out that this is because the LastModified date of the files changed into the date/time of upload. This is fine, but the sequence of the upload was also different. My code uses the modified date of the file to find out which one is the most recent, which would now return a different file based on the new dates.
I found that you cannot modify this property, although you can change another property to have it update. So I know the solution: I could write a quick script which gets the sequence of files from my production instance and then touches every file in the test instance in the same sequence.
But... I was wondering whether this is the best option. I also read it's 'best practice' to store a custom datetime in a separate property, but I don't think I can do that straight from Stream Analytics (which is writing the blobs). I also considered using an Azure Function to do this (new blob => update property), but I'm than adding complexity and something that might fail for whatever reason.
So I'm looking for the best way to solve this problem. Anyone?
Update: this one probably deserves a tiny bit more explanation. Apart from using the LastModified date to sort on, I also use it to filter blobs. The blobs themselves are CSV files containing ASA output data, so telemetry records. Each record has a timestamp, but that information is IN the file. When retrieving data, I don't want to have to dive into each file to find out what the timestamp is of those records. So I use a prefilter to filter out the blobs within a certain timespan, and then only download / open those file to the records inside.
This works perfectly as long as you do not touch any of the blob, but obviously it stops working as soon as any of the blobs gets modified for whatever reason. So I'm now convinced that I need a different / better way to solve this issue; but how?
It seems to me that you have two separate things: the data that you want to store in blob storage and metadata about the blob such as the timestamp. I would create a different (azure) database for the metadata or even simpler just add metadata to the (block)blob:
blockBlob.Metadata.Add("from", dateTime.ToString());
blockBlob.Metadata.Add("to", dateTime.ToString());
blockBlob.Metadata.Add("order", "1");
For sorting I would just add a simple order property.
The comment by #Vignesh deserves the credit here, but in order to get this one marked answer I'll provide it myself.
With ASA, you can set the output to be structured by date/time. That means in this case, data is written to the blob store with a directory structure such as:
2016 / 06 / 27 / 15 / 23 (= 27-06-2016 15:23)
2016 / 06 / 28 / 11 / 02 (= 28-06-2016 11:02)
The ASA output allow you to specify how granular you want the structure to be, in my case I chose to store it by day (so not including a time path). The ASA runtime will now ensure that data from a certain point in time is stored within a blob in that resides in the correct path.
Then I subsequently changed my logic to not use the datetime stamp of the individual blob files any more, but simply read just the files from the folders that are within the timerange I'm interested in. That assures we only get data that was produced within that timerange. And if there's more than one file in a folder, I need to load them both since both were in the same timerange anyway. As long as minutes are enough granularity for you, this works excellent even though it might feel a bit strange to use a folder structure for such a thing.
Having a seperate 'index' for blobs which tracks their datetime would work too of course, but adds complexity which in this case I don't really need.
Let me explain in more detail:
1st: I'm running endeca 3.1, so Endeca Server here refers to 3.0's Data Domain.
I'm required to use an Endeca Server currently present on Endeca (Downloaded a Demo VM). All the info on it, including, groups, attributes and data, must be merged into out Endeca Server. (It can also be the other way around, i could merge my Endeca Server into this one.)
So far, i've tried to do the following:
1) Clone the Endeca Server
2) use the putCollection sconfig operation to create a collection on it with the same name i have on mine.
3) Load configurations using the LoadCollection & LoadAttributes graphs from OEID POC Template 3.1. I point to the new collection on the Configuration.xls file.
This is where i encounter an issue. The LoadAttributes graph gets a T/O message from the server's WS. Then the config WSDL becomes inaccesible for a while. I can't go beyond this point.
I've been able to load data into the collection, but i need to load the attributes first.
THanks in advance for your replies.
Regards
There are a few techniques.
Have you tried exporting the data domain and then importing it?
You can use the endeca-cmd tools to export to a file, and then import from that file. This would enable you to add 2 datastores into one server.
If you want to combine 2 datastores then that is a different question.
The simplest approach in 3.1 if the data collections are small. Extract then as CSV (via a data-table), convert to XLS and add them via self provisioning into separate collections within a single data store. If you are running in the VM this is potentially the easiest approach.
This can also be done using Integrator.
You don't need to load the attributes unless you are using multi-value types. You can call against the conversation web-service to extract data and then load it using 'bulk-load' I would not worry too much about creating the attributes unless this becomes essential due to their type or complexity. If you cannot call against the conversation web-service, then again extract as csv and load using Integrator.
I'm using SQL-Server 2008 with Visual Studio Database Edition.
With this setup, keeping your schema in sync is very easy. Basically, there's a 'compare schema' tool that allow me to sync the schema of two databases and/or a database schema with a source-controlled creation script folder.
However, the situation is less clear when it comes to data, which can be of three different kind :
static data referenced in the code. typical example : my users can change their setting, and their configuration is stored on the server. However, there's a system-wide default value for each setting that is used in case the user didn't override it. The table containing those default settings grows as more options are added to the program. This means that when a new feature/option is checked in, the system-wide default setting is usually created in the database as well.
static data. eg. a product list populating a dropdown list. The program doesn't rely on the existence of a specific product in the list to work. This can be for example a list of unicode-encoded products that should be deployed in production when the new "unicode version" of the program is deployed.
other data, ie everything else (logs, user accounts, user data, etc.)
It seems obvious to me that my third item shouldn't be source-controlled (of course, it should be backuped on a regular basis)
But regarding the static data, I'm wondering what to do.
Should I append the insert scripts to the creation scripts? or maybe use separate scripts?
How do I (as a developer) warn the people doing the deployment that they should execute an insert statement ?
Should I differentiate my two kind of data? (the first one being usually created by a dev, while the second one is usually created by a non-dev)
How do you manage your DB static data ?
I have explained the technique I used in my blog Version Control and Your Database. I use database metadata (in this case SQL Server extended properties) to store the deployed application version. I only have scripts that upgrade from version to version. At startup the application reads the deployed version from the database metadata (lack of metadata is interpreted as version 0, ie. nothing is yet deployed). For each version there is an application function that upgrades to the next version. Usually this function runs an internal resource T-SQL script that does the upgrade, but it can be something else, like deploying a CLR assembly in the database.
There is no script to deploy the 'current' database schema. New installments iterate trough all intermediate versions, from version 1 to current version.
There are several advantages I enjoy by this technique:
Is easy for me to test a new version. I have a backup of the previous version, I apply the upgrade script, then I can revert to the previous version, change the script, try again, until I'm happy with the result.
My application can be deployed on top of any previous version. Various clients have various deployed version. When they upgrade, my application supports upgrade from any previous version.
There is no difference between a fresh install and an upgrade, it runs the same code, so I have fewer code paths to maintain and test.
There is no difference between DML and DDL changes (your original question). they all treated the same way, as script run to change from one version to next. When I need to make a change like you describe (change a default), I actually increase the schema version even if no other DDL change occurs. So at version 5.1 the default was 'foo', in 5.2 the default is 'bar' and that is the only difference between the two versions, and the 'upgrade' step is simply an UPDATE statement (followed of course by the version metadata change, ie. sp_updateextendedproperty).
All changes are in source control, part of the application sources (T-SQL scripts mostly).
I can easily get to any previous schema version, eg. to repro a customer complaint, simply by running the upgrade sequence and stopping at the version I'm interested in.
This approach saved my skin a number of times and I'm a true believer now. There is only one disadvantage: there is no obvious place to look in source to find 'what is the current form of procedure foo?'. Because the latest version of foo might have been upgraded 2 or 3 versions ago and it wasn't changed since, I need to look at the upgrade script for that version. I usually resort to just looking into the database and see what's in there, rather than searching through the upgrade scripts.
One final note: this is actually not my invention. This is modeled exactly after how SQL Server itself upgrades the database metadata (mssqlsystemresource).
If you are changing the static data (adding a new item to the table that is used to generate a drop-down list) then the insert should be in source control and deployed with the rest of the code. This is especially true if the insert is needed for the rest of the code to work. Otherwise, this step may be forgotten when the code is deployed and not so nice things happen.
If static data comes from another source (such as an import of the current airport codes in the US), then you may simply need to run an already documented import process. The import process itself should be in source control (we do this with all our SSIS packages), but the data need not be.
Here at Red Gate we recently added a feature to SQL Data Compare allowing static data to be stored as DML (one .sql file for each table) alongside the schema DDL that is currently supported by SQL Compare.
To understand how this works, here is a diagram that explains how it works.
The idea is that when you want to push changes to your target server, you do a comparison using the scripts as the source data source, which generates the necessary DML synchronization script to update the target. This means you don't have to assume that the target is being recreated from scratch each time. In time we hope to support static data in our upcoming SQL Source Control tool.
David Atkinson, Product Manager, Red Gate Software
I have come across this when developing CMS systems.
I went with appending the static data (the stuff referenced in the code) to the database creation scripts, then a separate script to add in any 'initialisation data' (like countries, initial product population etc).
For the first two steps, you could consider using an intermediate format (ie XML) for the data, then using a home grown tool, or something like CodeSmith to generate the SQL, and possible source files as well, if (for example) you have lookup tables which relate to enumerations used in the code - this helps enforce consistency.
This has another benefit that if the schema changes, in many cases you don't have to regenerate all your INSERT statements - you just change the tool.
I really like your distinction of the three types of data.
I agree for the third.
In our application, we try to avoid putting in the database the first, because it is duplicated (as it has to be in the code, the database is a duplicate). A secondary benefice is that we need no join or query to get access to that value from the code, so this speed things up.
If there is additional information that we would like to have in the database, for example if it can be changed per customer site, we separate the two. Other tables can still reference that data (either by index ex: 0, 1, 2, 3 or by code ex: EMPTY, SIMPLE, DOUBLE, ALL).
For the second, the scripts should be in source-control. We separate them from the structure (I think they typically are replaced as time goes, while the structures keeps adding deltas).
How do I (as a developer) warn the people doing the deployment that they should execute an insert statement ?
We have a complete procedure for that, and a readme coming with each release, with scripts and so on...
First off, I have never used Visual Studio Database Edition. You are blessed (or cursed) with whatever tools this utility gives you. Hopefully that includes a lot of flexibility.
I don't know that I'd make that big a difference between your type 1 and type 2 static data. Both are sets of data that are defined once and then never updated, barring subsequent releases and updates, right? In which case the main difference is in how or why the data is as it is, and not so much in how it is stored or initialized. (Unless the data is environment-specific, as in "A" for development, "B" for Production. This would be "type 4" data, and I shall cheerfully ignore it in this post, because I've solved it useing SQLCMD variables and they give me a headache.)
First, I would make a script to create all the tables in the database--preferably only one script, otherwise you can have a LOT of scripts lying about (and find-and-replace when renaming columns becomes very awkward). Then, I would make a script to populate the static data in these tables. This script could be appended to the end of the table script, or made it's own script, or even made one script per table, a good idea if you have hundreds or thousands of rows to load. (Some folks make a csv file and then issue a BULK INSERT on it, but I'd avoid that is it just gives you two files and a complex process [configuring drive mappings on deployment] to manage.)
The key thing to remember is that data (as stored in databases) can and will change over time. Rarely (if ever!) will you have the luxury of deleting your Production database and replacing it with a fresh, shiny, new one devoid of all that crufty data from the past umpteen years. Databases are all about changes over time, and that's where scripts come into their own. You start with the scripts to create the database, and then over time you add scripts that modify the database as changes come along -- and this applies to your static data (of any type) as well.
(Ultimately, my methodology is analogous to accounting: you have accounts, and as changes come in you adjust the accounts with journal entries. If you find you made a mistake, you never go back and modify your entries, you just make a subsequent entries to reverse and fix them. It's only an analogy, but the logic is sound.)
The solution I use is to have create and change scripts in source control, coupled with version information stored in the database.
Then, I have an install wizard that can detect whether it needs to create or update the db - the update process is managed by picking appropriate scripts based on the stored version information in the database.
See this thread's answer. Static data from your first two points should be in source control, IMHO.
Edit: *new
all-in-one or a separate script? it does not really matter as long as you (dev team) agree with your deployment team. I prefer to separate files, but I still can always create all-in-one.sql from those in the proper order [Logins, Roles, Users; Tables; Views; Stored Procedures; UDFs; Static Data; (Audit Tables, Audit Triggers)]
how do you make sure they execute it: well, make it another step in your application/database deployment documentation. If you roll out application which really needs specific (new) static data in the database, then you might want to perform a DB version check in your application. and you update the DB_VERSION to your new release number as part of that script. Then your application on a start-up should check it and report an error if the new DB version is required.
dev and non-dev static data: I have never seen this case actually. More often there is real static data, which you might call "dev", which is major configuration, ISO static data etc. The other type is default lookup data, which is there for users to start with, but they might add more. The mechanism to INSERT these data might be different, because you need to ensure you do not destoy (power-)user-created data.