I'm starting to use the console migrations for CakePHP.
I would like to know where should I put the Initial Data for my application. For example if I'm going to run it in a developer machine for the first time and I need to set up some tables with data.
As I can see in the official book they recommend the "CakeSchema callbacks", but the method "public function after()" inside schema.php is rewritten every time i run:
cake schema generate
Also this doesn't look like a clean approach.
Where should I put this kind of instruction?
I'm running CakePHP 2.4
Thanks!
You can use the Migrations plugin for such a thing https://github.com/CakeDC/migrations
So that you can provide the migrations (creation of tables, creation of fields, as well insertion of data into your tables)
Related
I am using cakephp 3.
I need to run a script for updating the database schema like adding a column or altering it.
I do not wish to use Migrations as it would require me to write scripts for every change.
Is there any other way to alter schema of the database if we are neither using migrations nor making changes to the database manually using cakePHP 3?
You could use the schema system for doing this, which I think would work fine for things like adding user-defined columns. But if you're looking for an easier way to do migrations, you'd need to put that schema-related code somewhere and keep track of which changes have already been made, and then you're basically just re-inventing migrations.
Using CakePHP 2.x
I have successfully generated many models, controllers, and views but one of them is just not working.
the database table is name 'server_cpu', The model appears to generate fine as I have compared it to other models that can be turned into controllers and views and it is identical. It also does have the useTable = 'server_cpu', but even still when I try to generate the Controller it tells me that the model has to have a table. After looking closely I believe that it is trying to use the table 'server_cpues', How can i force it to use 'server_cpu' and not 'server_cpues', note that I have tried emptying the /tmp/cache/ folder and that has no effect.
The error when attempting to generate a controller for 'ServerCpus' using cake bake: 'You must have a model for this class to build basic methods. Please try again.'
There are two possible solutions:
Firstly: simply changing the name of the table can resolve this problem, but it should be noted that for many this is not a possibly depending on the stage of development, for example if the current database is well established and used by many other systems or application this may not be possible. If you are starting from scratch this will be an easier solution.
Secondly: a slightly more complex solution would be to work with Inflectors to change the behavior of CakePHP. This can be done by modifying the file '/app/Config/bootstrap.php' to add a custom Inflector, for documentation on this refer to this for information on inflectors for CakePHP 2.x. For this particular situation you could use something like
Inflector::rules('plural', array('rules' => array( '/(.*)cpu$/i' => '\1Cpu' ) ));
Note the use of regex to recognize all string containing cpu
I have two versions of my blog: the 1st is written in PHP and uses MySQL, but the 2nd, the new one, is written in Python and uses Postgres.
My goal is to move data from one to other. Table names and schema changes.
My idea was to make ORM models for old site, and, using loop, get data using ORM and put it in new database, because I have ORM models for my new site too.
It would look something like:
old_articles = OldArticle.objects.all()
for old_article in old_articles:
new_article = NewArticle()
new_article.title = old_article.name
new_article.content = old_article.body
new_article.save()
ORM would easy abstract differences between the databases and, in my opinion, this could actually work! Or no, are there better ways?
If this migration will only be done once, I wouldn't go the ORM way. Exporting standards-compliant SQL dumps from MySQL is possible and the dumps could easily be imported into PostgreSQL. Once the data is in PostgreSQL, run your migration queries to make the scheme changes or use temporary 'import' tables and copy the data to the tables in the new scheme/lay-out.
Test all your migration queries and write a scenario containing all steps to take, which queries to run and in what order. Also include manual steps that need to be performed.
Once you're sure that the migration scenario is correct, and fully tested, put your old blog in 'maintainance mode' (sorry, we're offline, we'll be back soon) and do it for real!
Most important: test your scenario, validate the result and, take your time, you should never hurry these things!
There are a lot of libraries to do this sort of thing. I would stick to something that is already implemented and well tested. Here is a link to the postgres wiki that has a list of tools to do just this thing.
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Converting_from_other_Databases_to_PostgreSQL
Hey.
I'm having a hard time migrating changes I've done i my config/doctrine/schema.yml file.
I added the column age to the user table. Then I did a php symfony doctrine:generate-migrations-diff followed by php symfony doctrine:migrate .
Looking in my database, the column age is now added, without deleting any data.
But, my /lib/model/doctrine/base/BaseUser.class.php is not changed, there is no age field or functions for age . So I also did the command php symfony doctrine:build-model . Finally the model is updated/migrated too.
So I wonder, is this the only way? Seems like a lot of work, and I'm afraid to miss something each time doing it.
Could I go right into phpmyadmin, add changes in the database there and just do a php symfony doctrine:build-schema , and like that skip the migration part (two commands).
Also when the comes to use of models, am I right that /lib/model/doctrine/User.class.php is where I can make functions and such for my User "data class"? Like, making a function isFemale . If not, where would that kind of function be?
This might be a bad question, but why is the model layer inside the /lib/doctrine path? As far as I have learned, you keep modules inside apps, where you create your view and controller. Why should the model be outside. Like this I can make models without attached controller and view?
Thanks.
Why should the model be outside
Because models can be used everywhere in your project, in example, in different applications and modules.
Could I go right into phpmyadmin, add changes in the database there and just do a php symfony doctrine:build-schema , and like that skip the migration part (two commands).
Of course you can, but migrations are a good approach to track your schema when deploying to production or working in team.
Here how I use doctrine migrations (simple use-case):
Add a column age to my User model in schema.yml
./symfony doctrine:generate-migrations-diff. Migration class(-es) have been generated.
./symfony doctrine:migrate. Column age successfully added to table.
./symfony doctrine:build --all-classes. Build forms/filters/models
That's it. The main idea is that doctrine:generate-migrations-diff class:
Gathers information about all your models' structure (php-representation of schema.yml)
Compares your schema.yml and info from (1)
Generates migration classes based on difference
Also when the comes to use of models, am I right that /lib/model/doctrine/User.class.php is where I can make functions and such for my User "data class"? Like, making a function isFemale . If not, where would that kind of function be?
Yes, you can add such method to User model because it's about users.
What I really like about Entity framework is its drag and drop way of making up the whole model layer of your application. You select the tables, it joins them and you're done. If you update the database scheda, right click -> update and you're done again.
This seems to me miles ahead the competiting ORMs, like the mess of XML (n)Hibernate requires or the hard-to-update Django Models.
Without concentrating on the fact that maybe sometimes more control over the mapping process may be good, are there similar one-click (or one-command) solutions for other (mainly open source like python or php) programming languages or frameworks?
Thanks
SQLAlchemy database reflection gets you half way there. You'll still have to declare your classes and relations between them. Actually you could easily autogenerate the classes too, but you'll still need to name the relations somehow so you might as well declare the classes manually.
The code to setup your database would look something like this:
from sqlalchemy import create_engine, MetaData
from sqlalchemy.ext.declarative import declarative_base
metadata = MetaData(create_engine(database_url), reflect=True)
Base = declarative_base(metadata)
class Order(Base):
__table__ = metadata.tables['orders']
class OrderLine(Base):
__table__ = metadata.tables['orderlines']
order = relation(Order, backref='lines')
In production code, you'd probably want to cache the reflected database metadata somehow. Like for instance pickle it to a file:
from cPickle import dump, load
import os
if os.path.exists('metadata.cache'):
metadata = load(open('metadata.cache'))
metadata.bind = create_engine(database_url)
else:
metadata = MetaData(create_engine(database_url), reflect=True)
dump(metadata, open('metadata.cache', 'w'))
I do not like “drag and drop” create of data access code.
At first sight it seems easy, but then you make a change to the database and have to update the data access code. This is where it becomes hard, as you often have to redo what you have done before, or hand edit the code the drag/drop designer created. Often when you make a change to one field mapping with a drag/drop designer, the output file has unrelated lines changes, so you can not use your source code control system to confirm you have make the intended change (and not change anything else).
However having to create/edit xml configuring files is not nice every time you refractor your code or change your database schema you have to update the mapping file. It is also very hard to get started with mapping files and tracking down what looks like simple problem can take ages.
There are two other options:
Use a code generator like CodeSmith that comes with templates for many ORM systems. When (not if) you need to customize the output you can edit the template, but the simple case are taken care of for you. That ways you just rerun the code generator every time you change the database schema and get a repeatable result.
And/or use fluent interface (e.g Fluent NHibernate) to configure your ORM system, this avoids the need to the Xml config file and in most cases you can use naming conventions to link fields to columns etc. This will be harder to start with then a drag/drop designer but will pay of in the long term if you do match refactoring of the code or database.
Another option is to use a model that you generate both your database and code from. The “model” is your source code and is kept under version control. This is called “Model Driven Development” and can be great if you have lots of classes that have simpler patterns, as you only need to create the template for each pattern once.
I have heard iBattis is good. A few companies fall back to iBattis when their programmer teams are not capable of understanding Hibernate (time issue).
Personally, I still like Linq2Sql. Yes, the first time someone needs to delete and redrag over a table seems like too much work, but it really is not. And the time that it doesn't update your class code when you save is really a pain, but you simply control-a your tables and drag them over again. Total remakes are very quick and painless. The classes it creates are extremely simple. You can even create multiple table entities if you like with SPs for CRUD.
Linking SPs to CRUD is similar to EF: You simply setup your SP with the same parameters as your table, then drag it over your table, and poof, it matches the data types.
A lot of people go out of their way to take IQueryable away from the repository, but you can limit what you link in linq2Sql, so IQueryable is not too bad.
Come to think of it, I wonder if there is a way to restrict the relations (and foreign keys).