Migration 2019-04-28-201506_create_tantivy_index is failing to run #702
Labels
No labels
A: API
A: Backend
A: Federation
A: Front-End
A: I18N
A: Meta
A: Security
Build
C: Bug
C: Discussion
C: Enhancement
C: Feature
Compatibility
Dependency
Design
Documentation
Good first issue
Help welcome
Mobile
Rendering
S: Blocked
S: Duplicate
S: Incomplete
S: Instance specific
S: Invalid
S: Needs Voting/Discussion
S: Ready for review
Suggestion
S: Voted on Loomio
S: Wontfix
No milestone
No project
No assignees
2 participants
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: Plume/Plume#702
Loading…
Add table
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Updated to latest git from an old plume and the migration
2019-04-28-201506_create_tantivy_index
doesn't run (postgresql).this is probably due to the migration using the latest Database Model, but with an old database, because
users.role
is created in migration2019-06-18-152700_moderator_role
later.I can't reproduce but I'm pretty sure I know what the issue is. Could you run the same command with
RUST_BACKTRACE=1
? I would expectSearcher::add_document
to appear probably as the first non std call in the backtrace.The following is my understanding from your report, but would require a bit more testing to make sure it's actually the issue.
Short story:
#555 introduced arbitrary rust in migration, that is totally broken.
Long story
At compile time, the schema used in rust structures is always the one of latest migration, and it is assumed that migrations will be run before trying to query, which works pretty much always. But in this case, some rust code is run before end of migrations (it is a migration), and so it might query the database (again, it is a migration), but will expect the model to be as it will be after the last migration will be run. This is a big design flaw, and I think the best way to handle it is to remove such migrations for now, and search for better ideas or some other way to do. While that seemed like a good idea at the time, I don't see any clean way of handling this very non rare situation in the future.
Here is the full backtrace:
Yeah I've thought of the same thing, unfortunately there is no magic solution for data migrations mixed with schema ones.
I had issues with data migrations in my schema ones on my projects and either I was able to use the ORM without binding a schema by querying directly the right things, or I ended up moving all the data migrations in separate CLI commands.
The goal of such migrations was to reduce such separate commands (the exact migration failing for you is strictly equivalent to
plm search init
, although running it won't mark the migration as run).The fix will probably be to remove this migration, reintroduce it's command as an installation step, and remove one other, and try to rewrite it in sql