I'm doing some TDD with a ColdFusion ORM application so I'm letting the application.cfc in my tests directory so I'm setting dbcreate="update" so the tests will create the database tables. Every time I change a model's method and re-run my tests I get the following error:
Mapping for component models.user.User not found.
If I restart the server the error goes away, however this is a terrible workflow so I'm looking for a better way to fix this problem.
have you tried dbcreate=dropcreate?
From my experience, update or dropcreate might fail for the first time, but if you ormreload again, it might just work.
Related
I'm having a problem with an existing Mojolicous app. I have added some new routes, views, controllers, and models, and am returning database results to view using Rose::DB::Object ORM.
I updated the production version today with code that had been working great on Morbo. But, on apache2/plack/psgi mod_perl config the new Models are only returning the queries about 1 in 5 sometimes 1 in 10 times.
I've eliminated a number of variables, like I can query the database directly and get my results no problem. Older Model's and their queries always work.
It appears that only this new functionality is intermittent. I have narrowed requests to only one server and have restarted apache. But, am now at the point that I don't understand why the issue is persisting.
I think this is some kind of mod_perl wonky behavior, but don't know why an apache restart doesn't fix it.
Any help or ideas would be awesome.
I did finally resolve this and it turned out to be something simple. I was missing the use statement for my controller in my main application script. The script where I setup the routes. I'm not sure I understand why it was working intermittently in production and working all the time in development. But, once I added:
use TheApp::Controller::Tags; in the main app pm it worked consistently.
In retrospect it feels like I should have figured it out sooner, but the fact that it worked part of the time led me down the wrong path. Hopefully this will help someone else sometime.
I'm using MigratorDotNet to manage Rails-style migrations for my web app. I have a workflow where, if I delete all the tables in the database, I can access an installation view that will run MigratorDotNet and create all the necessary tables.
This works locally. For some reason, when I upload my code to my Arvixe hosting, the migrations just never run. I get this odd error:
There is already an object named 'SchemaInfo' in the database.
This is odd because, prior to running migrations, I manually deleted all the tables in the database (to make sure it wasn't left over from a previous install).
My code essentially boils down to:
new Migrator.Migrator("SqlServer", connectionString.ToString(), migrationsAssembly).MigrateToLastVersion();
I've already verified by logging that the connection string is correct (production/hosting settings), and the assembly is correctly loaded (name and version).
Works locally, but not on Arvixe. How do I troubleshoot this?
This is a dark day.
It turns out (oddly) that the root cause was my hosting company used a schema other than dbo for my database. Because of this, the error message I saw (SchemaInfo already exists) was talking about their table.
My solution, unfortunately, was to rip out MigratorDotNet and go with FluentMigator instead. not only did this solve the problem, but it also gave me a more intelligible error message (one referring to the schema names).
While it doesn't seem possible to auto-set the schema, and while I need to switch the schema on my dev vs. production machine, it's still a solvable problem (and a better API, IMO). I googled, but did not find any way to change the default schema in migratordotnet.
I'm sorry for the issues that you were having. On shared hosting, unfortunately the only way that we may be able to change the schema is manually. If you are still looking for a solution that requires our assistance, please forward your ticket ID to qa .at. arvixe.com as well as arvand .at. arvixe.com and we can look into the best way to resolve this.
In NHibernate, I have show_sql turned on for running unit tests. Each of my unit tests clears the database and refills it, and this results in lots of sql queries that I don't want NHibernate to output.
Is it possible to control show_sql without destroying the SessionFactory? If possible, I'd like to turn it off when running setup for a test, then turn it on again when the body of the test starts to run.
Is this possible?
The only place you can set this is when building a NHibernate.Cfg.Configuration.
Once you've created a SessionFactory from your Configuration, there's no way to access the configuration settings, which I think is one of the reasons for using a factory pattern: to ensure that instances once successfully built can't be messed up by runtime re- or mis-configuration.
If you really need that feature, get the NH source code and find the place where the show_sql setting is evaluated.
Another option although it may/may not be as good is to use NHProf and just initialise NHProf when testing.
NHProf doesn't log setting/clearing database just queries used.
I have the following scenario:
I'm starting development of a long project (around 6 months) and I need to have some information on the database in order to test my features. The problem is that right now, I don't have the forms to insert this information (I will in the future) but I need the information loaded on the DB, what's the best way to handle this? Specially considering that once the app is complete, I won't need this process anymore.
As an example, lets say I have tasks that need to be categorized. I've begun working on the tasks, but I need to have some categories loaded on my db already.
I'm working with Rails 3.1 btw.
Thanks in advance!
Edit
About seeds:I've been told that seeds are not the way to go if your data may vary a bit, since you'd have to delete all information and reinsert it again. Say.. I want to change or add categories, then I'd have to edit the seeds.rb file, do my modifications and then delete and reload all data...., is there another way? Or are seeds the defenitely best way to solve this problem?
So it sounds like you'll possibly be adding, changing, or deleting data along the way that will be intermingled amongst other data. So seeds.rb is out. What you need to use are migrations. That way you can search for and identify the data you want to change through a sequential process, which migrations are exactly designed for. Otherwise I think your best bet is to change the data manually through the rails console.
EDIT: A good example would be as follows.
You're using Capistrano to handle your deployment. You want to add a new Category, Toys, to your system. In a migration file then you would add Category.create(:name => "Toys") or something similar in your migration function (I forget what they call it now in Rails 3.1, I know there's only a single method though), run rake db:migrate locally, test your changes, commit them, then if it's acceptable deploy it using cap:deploy and that will run the new migration against your production database, insert the new category, and make it available for use in the deployed application.
That example aside, it really depends on your workflow. If you think that adding new data via migrations won't hose your application, then go for it. I will say that DHH (David Heinemeier Hansson) is not a fan of it, as he uses it strictly for changing the structure of the database over time. If you didn't know DHH is the creator of Rails.
EDIT 2:
A thought I just had, which would let you skip the notion of using migrations if you weren't comfortable with it. You could 100% rely on your db/seeds.rb file. When you think of "seeds.rb" you think of creating information, but this doesn't necessarily have to be the case. Rather than just blindly creating data, you can check to see if the pertinent data already exists, and if it does then modify and save it, but if it doesn't exist then just create a new record plain and simple.
db/seeds.rb
toys = Category.find_by_name("Toys")
if toys then
toys.name = "More Toys"
toys.save
else
Category.create(:name => "More Toys")
end
Run rake db:seeds and that code will run. You just need to consistently update the seeds.rb file every time you change your data, so that 1) it's searching for the right data value and 2) it's updating the correct attributes.
In the end there's no right or wrong way to do this, it's just whatever works for you and your workflow.
The place to load development data is db/seeds.rb. Since you can write arbitrary Ruby code there, you can even load your dev data from external files, for instance.
there is a file called db/seeds.rb
you can instantiate records using it
user1=User.create(:email=>"user#test.com",
:first_name=>"user",
:last_name=>"name",
:bio=>"User bio...",
:website=>"http://www.website.com",
:occupation=>"WebDeveloper",
:password=>"changeme",
:password_confirmation=>"changeme",
:avatar => File.open(File.join(Rails.root, '/app/assets/images/profiles/image.png'))
)
user2=User.create(:email=>"user2#test.com",
:first_name=>"user2",
:last_name=>"name2",
:bio=>"User2 bio...",
:website=>"http://www.website.com",
:occupation=>"WebDeveloper",
:password=>"changeme",
:password_confirmation=>"changeme",
:avatar => File.open(File.join(Rails.root, '/app/assets/images/profiles/image.png'))
)
Just run rake db:seed from command line to get it into the db
I'm trying to track down a problem on our test environment. Previously it was set to use InProc Session State Type, but I've added in the SQLServer type for one specific Web App. I did this because we use the SQLServer type in our production environment and I want our test env to match as closely as possible.
However, after changing it to SQLServer I do not get any errors when trying to store unserializable data in session like I would expect. It works just fine, even though I would think it shouldn't. I'm a relative newbie when it comes to configuring this, but from the various tutorials I googled, I thought I covered all the bases.
I was wondering if there's any code snippets to verify which session state type an application is actively using.
Thanks
Ok, found it by accessing:
System.Web.SessionState.HttpSessionState.Mode
Was also able to look at the tables in the ASPState database to see sessions being added/removed.
Apparently it was just the test code we were using that we expected to break that was not behaving as we expected..