On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Min Chen <min.c...@citrix.com> wrote:
> +1 on enforcing it through db constraints. Create a JIRA ticket > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-2676 to track this issue. > +1 enforce db constraints. May be have an options/feature in dbcreator to enforce this check and populate in case it's missing or wrong. Cheers. > > Thanks > -min > > On 5/24/13 6:20 AM, "Alex Huang" <alex.hu...@citrix.com> wrote: > > >+1 on adding the constraints. Just make sure you add them after > >upgrading the data. > > > >Populating with id in the upgrade prevents exactly the problem you've > >described. That's why we're doing it. > > > > > >--Alex > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Nitin Mehta [mailto:nitin.me...@citrix.com] > >> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:09 PM > >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > >> Subject: Re: Convention on UUID column > >> > >> Agree with Koushik. Lets enforce the not null constraint on all the > >>UUID fields > >> now that we are populating it. > >> > >> Also wanted to ask why we are populating it with the ID and not a > >>generated > >> UUID ? Doesn't break the backward compatibilty going either ways but the > >> later is more consistent right and can be used in future as they are > >>always > >> unique across the system - say for storing templates directly under > >>?UUID of > >> the template/vol/snapshot on sec. storage than using the folder > >>structure of > >> templates/account_id/template_id/real_template ? > >> Clients who have hardcoded against CS for system vm ids, service > >>offering ids > >> etc. will break definitely though - is that ok ? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> -Nitin > >> > >> On 24/05/13 9:26 AM, "Koushik Das" <koushik....@citrix.com> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >It is better to add constraints in the db for all uuid fields. That way > >> >uuid field will never get missed out. I see that for some tables there > >> >is a NOT NULL constraint. > >> > > >> >-Koushik > >> > > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: Min Chen [mailto:min.c...@citrix.com] > >> >> Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 4:09 AM > >> >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > >> >> Subject: Convention on UUID column > >> >> > >> >> Hi there, > >> >> > >> >> During API refactoring efforts, Rohit and I run into several issues > >> >>due to empty UUID column for existing DB entries. Since UUID was > >> >>introduced later in 3.0.x, we have to always conditionally handle > >> >>existing customers with empty UUID columns for different entities, > >> >>causing much headache for various upgrade cases. To make sure that we > >> >>have a consistent upgrade base for all 4.1 customers later, in > >> >>schema-410to420.sql, we have added sql scripts to populate UUID > >> >>column of all pre-4.1 schema tables with values from their ID column > >> >>if UUID column is NULL. To make this work properly, we require that > >> >>all UUID columns should be populated with values when you add new > >> >>data into both pre-4.1 schema or post-4.1 schema. I just noticed that > >> >>this assumption may not be well known to community, since I am seeing > >> >>this sql in schema-410to420.sql: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> INSERT INTO `cloud`.`vm_template` (id, unique_name, name, public, > >> >>created, type, hvm, bits, account_id, url, checksum, enable_password, > >> >>display_text, format, guest_os_id, featured, cross_zones, > >> >>hypervisor_type) > >> >> > >> >> VALUES (10, 'routing-10', 'SystemVM Template (LXC)', 0, now(), > >> >>'SYSTEM', 0, 64, 1, > >> >>'http://download.cloud.com/templates/acton/acton-systemvm- > >> >> 02062012.qcow2.bz2', '2755de1f9ef2ce4d6f2bee2efbb4da92', 0, > >> 'SystemVM > >> >>Template (LXC)', 'QCOW2', 15, 0, 1, 'LXC'); > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Instead, this should be modified as: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> INSERT INTO `cloud`.`vm_template` (id, uuid, unique_name, name, > >> >>public, created, type, hvm, bits, account_id, url, checksum, > >> >>enable_password, display_text, format, guest_os_id, featured, > >> >>cross_zones, > >> >>hypervisor_type) > >> >> > >> >> VALUES (10, UUID(), 'routing-10', 'SystemVM Template (LXC)', 0, > >> >>now(), 'SYSTEM', 0, 64, 1, > >> >>'http://download.cloud.com/templates/acton/acton- > >> >> systemvm-02062012.qcow2.bz2', '2755de1f9ef2ce4d6f2bee2efbb4da92', 0, > >> >>'SystemVM Template (LXC)', 'QCOW2', 15, 0, 1, 'LXC'); > >> >> > >> >> I have made this fix in master, but want to raise this topic to get > >> >>community's attention on this. > >> >> > >> >> Thanks > >> >> -min > >> >> > >> > > > > >
