Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Fix migration failure #1737

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Aug 26, 2017
Merged

Fix migration failure #1737

merged 5 commits into from
Aug 26, 2017

Conversation

alukach
Copy link
Contributor

@alukach alukach commented Aug 22, 2017 •
edited
Loading

Fix bug where migration fails if no spatial units are associated with project.

As mentioned in #1716.

Proposed changes in this pull request

Use COALESCE to fallback to 0 if sum(<spatial_unit_areas>) == null, in the event that a Project has no associated SpatialUnit instances.

When should this PR be merged

Before releasing #1716.

Risks

[List any risks that could arise from merging your pull request.]

Follow-up actions

[List any possible follow-up actions here; for instance, testing data
migrations, software that we need to install on staging and production
environments.]

Checklist (for reviewing)

General

  • Is this PR explained thoroughly? All code changes must be accounted for in the PR description.
    • Review 1
    • Review 2
  • Is the PR labeled correctly? It should have the migration label if a new migration is added.
    • Review 1
    • Review 2
  • Is the risk level assessment sufficient? The risks section should contain all risks that might be introduced with the PR and which actions we need to take to mitigate these risks. Possible risks are database migrations, new libraries that need to be installed or changes to deployment scripts.
    • Review 1
    • Review 2

Functionality

  • Are all requirements met? Compare implemented functionality with the requirements specification.
    • Review 1
    • Review 2
  • Does the UI work as expected? There should be no Javascript errors in the console; all resources should load. There should be no unexpected errors. Deliberately try to break the feature to find out if there are corner cases that are not handled.
    • Review 1
    • Review 2

Code

  • Do you fully understand the introduced changes to the code? If not ask for clarification, it might uncover ways to solve a problem in a more elegant and efficient way.
    • Review 1
    • Review 2
  • Does the PR introduce any inefficient database requests? Use the debug server to check for duplicate requests.
    • Review 1
    • Review 2
  • Are all necessary strings marked for translation? All strings that are exposed to users via the UI must be marked for translation.
    • Review 1
    • Review 2
  • Is the code documented sufficiently? Large and complex classes, functions or methods must be annotated with comments following our code-style guidelines.
    • Review 1
    • Review 2
  • Has the scalability of this change been evaluated?
    • Review 1
    • Review 2
  • Is there a maintenance plan in place?
    • Review 1
    • Review 2

Tests

  • Are there sufficient test cases? Ensure that all components are tested individually; models, forms, and serializers should be tested in isolation even if a test for a view covers these components.
    • Review 1
    • Review 2
  • If this is a bug fix, are tests for the issue in place? There must be a test case for the bug to ensure the issue won’t regress. Make sure that the tests break without the new code to fix the issue.
    • Review 1
    • Review 2
  • If this is a new feature or a significant change to an existing feature? has the manual testing spreadsheet been updated with instructions for manual testing?
    • Review 1
    • Review 2

Security

  • Confirm this PR doesn't commit any keys, passwords, tokens, usernames, or other secrets.
    • Review 1
    • Review 2
  • Are all UI and API inputs run through forms or serializers?
    • Review 1
    • Review 2
  • Are all external inputs validated and sanitized appropriately?
    • Review 1
    • Review 2
  • Does all branching logic have a default case?
    • Review 1
    • Review 2
  • Does this solution handle outliers and edge cases gracefully?
    • Review 1
    • Review 2
  • Are all external communications secured and restricted to SSL?
    • Review 1
    • Review 2

Documentation

  • Are changes to the UI documented in the platform docs? If this PR introduces new platform site functionality or changes existing ones, the changes must be documented in the Cadasta Platform Documentation.
    • Review 1
    • Review 2
  • Are changes to the API documented in the API docs? If this PR introduces new API functionality or changes existing ones, the changes must be documented in the API docs.
    • Review 1
    • Review 2
  • Are reusable components documented? If this PR introduces components that are relevant to other developers (for instance a mixin for a view or a generic form) they should be documented in the Wiki.
    • Review 1
    • Review 2

@amplifi
Copy link
Contributor

amplifi commented Aug 22, 2017

As discussed in #1716, this issue is being resolved at the location level with area values for locations without geometries defaulting to 0. That resolution is already submitted in #1728.

@amplifi amplifi closed this Aug 22, 2017
@seav
Copy link
Contributor

seav commented Aug 22, 2017

No, we need to reopen this. I also encountered the null-constraint error @alukach ran into as mentioned in #1716 but I thought it was just me. Now that Anthony has explained the issue, the migration error makes perfect sense. This is a totally separate issue from the null-area locations bug. The issue is that the 0006 migration fails if the project has no locations at all. So it does not matter if location areas default to null or 0 because there are no locations in the project.

@seav seav reopened this Aug 22, 2017
@amplifi
Copy link
Contributor

amplifi commented Aug 22, 2017

Ok, this will need to be changed to migration 0007 as there's already a 0006 in master.

@alukach
Copy link
Contributor Author

alukach commented Aug 22, 2017 •
edited
Loading

@amplifi This is a bugfix to the 0006 migration, it is not a new migration. This bug causes organizations/0006 fails, so any subsequent migrations will not run (assuming the conditions described in #1716 (comment) are met).

@amplifi
Copy link
Contributor

amplifi commented Aug 22, 2017

If this is a bugfix, it's required to include tests to prevent regression.

@alukach
Copy link
Contributor Author

alukach commented Aug 22, 2017

@amplifi Sure, I've updated the previously written test.

seav
seav reviewed Aug 23, 2017
View reviewed changes
cadasta/organization/tests/test_migrations.py Outdated
@@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ def test_migration(self):
call_command('migrate', 'organization', self.migrate_from)

org = Organization.objects.create(name='Test Org')
Project.objects.create(name='No Locations Proj', organization=org)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So the unit test failed because you need to specify unique ids for both projects.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah, thanks. I just made the commit and closed my laptop. Will correct it tonight.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It might be better to use the existing ProjectFactory for cases like this.

@amplifi
Copy link
Contributor

amplifi commented Aug 26, 2017

@seav Do the latest changes satisfy your review? If so, please update to approved. This is blocking for the staging release build.

alukach and others added 5 commits August 26, 2017 11:50
@alukach @amplifi
Fix migration failure
b6a5ad2 
Fix bug where migration fails if no spatial units are associated with project.
@amplifi
Add sanity test
2ace0ca
@amplifi
Use ProjectFactory
54e73d1
@amplifi
Fixup
2e21acc
@amplifi
Flake8 cleanup
b073750
@amplifi amplifi force-pushed the proj-area-calc-migration-bugfix branch from 70a6f1b to b073750 Compare August 26, 2017 10:50
@amplifi amplifi merged commit 7b50f51 into master Aug 26, 2017
@amplifi amplifi deleted the proj-area-calc-migration-bugfix branch August 26, 2017 11:09
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@amplifi amplifi amplifi approved these changes

@seav seav seav approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
PR: approved PR: bugfix
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@alukach @amplifi @seav