Skip to content

Settings and activity

27 results found

  1. 147 votes
    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 Search » Graphical User Interface  ·  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)
    Stephen supported this idea  · 
  2. 15 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    6 comments  ·  SQL Prompt » Intellisense  ·  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)
    Stephen shared this idea  · 
  3. 10 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 » History/Log  ·  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)
    Stephen supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stephen commented  · 

    @David: for those of us who use SSMS and merely have SVN as "the black box that handles my source", having this ability in SSC is a need, not a nicety. Please consider this in the next release plan.

  4. 79 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Kendra responded

    An update for users on the status of this suggestion:

    An ‘object locking’ feature was added to SQL Source Control following the creation of this item which can helps users working in a shared database environment not write over each other’s changes.

    This may help prevent accidental commits in some cases, as there is a “Locking” tab which allows users to see which other users are working on specific items.

    Locked items are still eligible to be committed, however, and there are cases where users will want to commit an item — perhaps to a specific branch in source control which is not ready to deploy — even if the item in the database is locked.

    We have found at Redgate that the easiest way to enable alignment with distributed source control systems such as Git is to empower users to use dedicated development databases rather than shared databases. Tools…

    Stephen supported this idea  · 
  5. 6 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    5 comments  ·  SQL Source Control » History/Log  ·  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
    Stephen commented  · 

    "Perceived need" is better diff detection, i.e., obviate false diff detection just because, for exaple, a permission for a different user comes before the permission now marked as a diff but happens to be present in both old and new.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stephen commented  · 

    Whichever is the best one you could include from what appears to be a decent list at http://stackoverflow.com/questions/792910/best-graphical-source-code-diff-viewer-editor-for-code-comparison-and-merging

    The one I used to use is no longer available as it was within a CASE Tool - very smart and configurable.

    I've used the add-on within Notepad++ and it's OK, but still doesn't scan far enough for my liking with SQL scripts. Having a hook to start up Notepad++ with the 2 SQL files would be a start for me as I can at least adjust for spaces, parens, etc and get to the real meat of the differences.

    I have Active File Compare, but it can be buggy although when working it does a good job, but isn't SQL-versant, sadly.

    Wikipedia has a big comparison page, too, for file diff software.

    I guess "hooks to the most popular" would be a good starting point (including Notepad++ of course).

    Thanks for asking.

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

    This would be helpful as, all too frequently, the built-in diff viewer shows diffs that, if it had looked a little further, like humans do, would not have exhibited a diff. Some diff viewers/detectors give options as to how many lines to scan before a diff is exhibited - this, too, would be valuable as a configurable option.

  6. 56 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    6 comments  ·  SQL Prompt » Smart rename  ·  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 going to be reviewing this over the next couple of months, which would be released via the SQL Prompt for Teams EAP (get in touch if you want to know more).

    In the meantime please add any other information that you think would be useful.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Stephen commented  · 

    The multi-rename ability would be MOST useful when one is charged with modyfying column names to conform to "generally accepted best practices". The legacy (dung heap of insanity) I just inherited features part of the table name as the prefix in 95% of all column names, rendering like-column-name-recognition nigh on impossible. I have HUNDREDS of columns to rename and, for example, taking a 50-column table through the rename process piecemeal is obviously a painful undertaking.

    If I could use all 25 votes for just "Bulk Rename" I would!

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

    Or in the opening dialog, give us the option to "Add more columns to rename". I, too, find the repetitive nature of multiple column renames a very time-consuming exercise. Granted we don't typically do it very often, but when renaming four columns in the same table, to have to generate and merge four scripts seems a little O.T.T. and something that "Smart" Rename should handle for us... Any chance you can give us this great feature?

  7. 215 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    8 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)
    Stephen supported this idea  · 
2 Next →