Settings and activity

  1. 1 vote
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  SQL Source Control » Initial Setup  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    lakeland commented  · 

    Hi,

    I'm trying to link a freshly created database to SQL Source Control - it all looks fine and normal except the window which says Database, Linked To, Migrations Folder and Model has a white square overwriting all of the content. This makes it impossible to click on the 'link this database to source control'.

    I can just make out it says Database: T.
    Linked to
    A
    o
    n

    Then the standard pictures of dedicated database or shared database.

    Not quite sure since only part of those single letters are showing.

    I tried clicking on migrations or commit and then going back to setup but that didn't help. Anyway right clicking and choosing 'link database' works just fine (and fixes the setup window) so it's just something wrong with the initial link screen. All working now, just a one off funny glitch

    lakeland shared this idea  · 
  2. 477 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    31 comments  ·  SQL Source Control  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    under review  ·  Kendra responded

    Thank you everyone for your comments and votes on this over the years. While I don’t have a 100% full resolution for this suggestion, I can sum up our current recommendations here. Continued feedback is very welcome.

    Our current recommendation is to use the post-deployment script feature of SQL Source Control (released in V6.3) to manage SQL Server Agent jobs.

    An example script for this is here: https://documentation.red-gate.com/soc/common-tasks/working-with-pre-post-deployment-scripts/create-sql-server-agent-job

    As some commenters in this thread have alluded to, it is possible (and sometimes very common) for SQL Agent jobs to have steps that touch multiple databases on a single SQL Server Instance. For this reason, some customers prefer to create a separate database for instance-level management and objects (sometimes named DBA or similar) and choose to manage things like linked servers and SQL Agent jobs with the post-script associated with that database.

    This separate-database architecture also makes sense if the jobs…

    lakeland supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    lakeland commented  · 

    I currently work around this by making my jobs short and trivial - all calling a SP which is under source control. e.g. sp_daily_load. That way the only bits I miss out on are things like scheduling and notifications but I get the upside of tightly tying the version of the job to the version of the database.

  3. 19 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    3 comments  ·  SQL Source Control  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    lakeland commented  · 

    Can I vote against an idea? :)

    1. I review every change that is made and this would prevent me reviewing things properly.
    2. This would eliminate the useful commit log messages
    3. This would prevent atomic commits - I would have many commits that leave the DB in an unstable state (e.g. after the table has been modified but before the related SP has been modified).

    I don't think source control is a replacement for a backup plan, even if the data does not need backups.

  4. 89 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    9 comments  ·  SQL Source Control  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’re currently not planning to support this for v1. Would you be ok to remove the $id$ keyword for now?

    We’ll have to see how many votes this suggestion gets…

    Internal reference number: SOC-113

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    lakeland commented  · 

    I'd certainly not wait for this feature but I'd find it pretty useful.

    Currently I have some developers writing changes in the comments of SPs and others adding comments in the commit log so I have to look in both places to get a full picture.

    lakeland supported this idea  · 
  5. 3 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  SQL Source Control  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    lakeland commented  · 

    Oops, that was by me sorry - forgot to log in

  6. 1 vote
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  SQL Source Control  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    lakeland commented  · 

    It broke in that update would no longer work and the scripts SQL Source Control generated were not executable by SQL Server.

    I have now emailed Support@Red-Gate.com thanks

    lakeland shared this idea  · 
  7. 75 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    6 comments  ·  SQL Source Control  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    lakeland commented  · 

    Could you explain what you mean by this?

    I have SSIS in version control already but it's ugly since auto-generated XML files don't have very good conversioning support.

    However I'm not sure how you could do it better?

  8. 1 vote
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  SQL Source Control  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    lakeland commented  · 

    I just checked at the command line and there were changes - so the issue is with the prev/next buttons

    Index: Stored Procedures/dbo.sp_stg_autocorrect.sql
    ===================================================================
    --- Stored Procedures/dbo.sp_stg_autocorrect.sql (revision 1525)
    +++ Stored Procedures/dbo.sp_stg_autocorrect.sql (working copy)
    @@ -643,8 +643,8 @@
    SELECT @dynamic_SQL = @dynamic_SQL
    + ' where exists (select 1 from #records_to_abort a ' ;

    SELECT @dynamic_SQL = @dynamic_SQL
    - + ' where a.log_id = r.log_id and '
    - SELECT @dynamic_SQL = @dynamic_SQL + 'a.row_id = r.row_id)' ;

    + + ' where a.log_id = r.log_id and'
    + SELECT @dynamic_SQL = @dynamic_SQL + 'a.row_id = r.row_id)' ;

    IF (@dynamic_SQL IS NOT NULL)
    @@ -665,8 +665,8 @@
    SELECT @dynamic_SQL = @dynamic_SQL
    + ' where exists (select 1 from #records_to_abort a ' ;

    SELECT @dynamic_SQL = @dynamic_SQL + ' where a.log_id = '
    - + @stg_name + '.log_id and '
    - SELECT @dynamic_SQL = @dynamic_SQL + ' a.row_id = '
    + + @stg_name + '.log_id and'
    + SELECT @dynamic_SQL = @dynamic_SQL + 'a.row_id = '
    + @stg_name + '.row_id)' ;

    select @rowcount = @@ROWCOUNT

    lakeland shared this idea  · 
  9. 2 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  SQL Source Control  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    This is a known issue. I’m glad you’re ok that the link to SVN is maintained. The problem is the underlying working folder is out of date.

    WORKAROUND:
    Option 1)
    On the setup tab, unlink the db from source control. If you still want to manage the db in SVN, then relink.

    Option 2)
    Use the Commit or Get Latest tabs to decide if you want to keep the version in your db and commit it or take the version that is in source control. After making a decision using the radio buttons in the differences pane at the bottom of these tabs, you must then click the Commit and/or Get Latest buttons to actually perform the action.

    HINT: You can select multiple rows by selecting 1 row and then hitting Ctrl-A or select the top row and then hold the shift key down and select the…

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    lakeland commented  · 

    Thanks, that's a good workaround.

    lakeland shared this idea  ·