Re: Admin - saveasnew to another database

Mike,

On 11/11/16 8:00 AM, Mike Dewhirst wrote:
> ... My solution is to tell the users to avoid doing real work on the
> staging server.  It exists only to check out new features. ...

I have a similar issue with users of my TEST vs PROD web sites.  They
develop experimental data in TEST and then want me to move it to
PROD once they have it ready.

So far, I've been able to accommodate them by dumping part or all
of the TEST DB and importing it into the PROD DB using native tools
that come with the DBMS (MySQL in this case).

But, the best solution, I think, is to add a "Draft" field to the models,
so that they can perform their experimental data changes in PROD
flagging them as draft, and then clear the draft flag when they are
ready for other users to see the new data.

This may require an access control system that allows privileged
users to mark data as draft, and to specify which other users can
see/edit the draft data, etc.  May also need multiple different drafts,
so you get into version tracking, etc.  Not simple, but may be the
best answer to your problem.

--Fred

---

Fred Stluka -- mailto:fred@bristle.com -- http://bristle.com/~fred/
Bristle Software, Inc -- http://bristle.com -- Glad to be of service!
Open Source: Without walls and fences, we need no Windows or Gates.

---

On 11/11/16 8:00 AM, Mike Dewhirst wrote:

To finish this thread, I have decided to abandon the attempt. My solution is to tell the users to avoid doing real work on the staging server. It exists only to check out new features.

I feel better now.

Thanks Melvyn and Tim

Mike

On 10/11/2016 11:08 AM, Mike Dewhirst wrote:

On 10/11/2016 12:06 AM, Tim Graham wrote:

I see. Although I would be interested to see what you come up with,

@Tim
It is getting there so if you are really interested I'll post it somewhere when it is working. I'm getting router errors at the moment which I might be able to workaround by permitting null in a FK fields during obj.save(using=db). Might ask some questions on this later. I don't really want to permit null in this particular case.

my initial reaction is that we wouldn't accept a patch for Django to do this. It seems too complex and brittle.

Having done some work on this I agree with you but disagree with Melvyn.

The task is complex and would be almost impossible to generalise. For example, from a number of substances the user may have done serious work on only a few and won't want the others transferred.

So I'm building a facility to transfer one substance at a time. If there is a future requirement for bulk transfer I can iterate.

The transferred substance might be a mixture in which case I have to collect the ingredient substances plus the m2m through records which are effectively the recipe. Some of the ingredients might themselves be mixtures. Not worrying about that at the moment.

For each substance there are 6 OneToMany, up to 15 OneToOne and two m2m relationships plus a OneToOne where the sibling has lots of its own complex relationships including a recursive OneToOne to form a daisy-chain of history. I'm skipping that one for the moment.

I agree with Melvyn

See below

that it seems unusual to use Django's multi-database facilities to transfer data between staging and production.

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 4:51:39 AM UTC-5, Melvyn Sopacua wrote:

    On Wednesday 09 November 2016 13:59:35 Mike Dewhirst wrote:
    > On 9/11/2016 9:13 AM, Tim Graham wrote:
    > > Interesting idea. I'd be interested to here more about the use
    case.
    >
    > Simple. I permitted my users to "play" on the staging site and
    now one
    > of them wants to transfer their work to the production site.

    Your approach is wrong. You think of this as one django project and
    trying to cheat under the hood, while in fact they are two different
    projects. And by design, staging is not always structually
    identical to
    production.

@Melvyn

I was wrong to think saveasnew might do the trick.

However, migration is fully implemented so I can easily abort any transfer if the structures are not identical. As it happens, there are only two databases at the moment. Staging and production and while they are not always structurally identical they are currently the same during testing.

    Your best approach is to use serialization with natural keys

Maybe but the complexity and a couple of business rules persuade me to write code to do it "manually" so I can unit test it. Also, if I get it going, the user can select a substance to transfer and doesn't have to bother me.

I also realise it is very brittle so it needs to be revised if the structure changes.

Thanks for your advice. I appreciate it even if I think I need to tackle the problem my way.

Cheers

Mike

    and a job
    scheduler. Cron will do, but there's plenty other schemes allowing
    you
    to provide feedback about the job queue and expected time of
    completion.
    --     Melvyn Sopacua

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com <mailto:django-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com <mailto:django-users@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-users.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-users/ccfa9aef-d1c3-45e0-a894-c07a2701c1aa%40googlegroups.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-users/ccfa9aef-d1c3-45e0-a894-c07a2701c1aa%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.