CarstenI have made some progress since documenting it and intend to refine it more.Experimenting has boosted my confidence in Postgres and there is a bit of scripting involved to fake-apply migrations in the correct sequence.At the moment I'm time poor and docco has to wait but can say I got both methods working. I decided in the end to go with Aymeric's because it is simpler and importantly for me resulted in reducing the gross number of migration files - which of course get frequently scanned by Django during unit testing. So that is a continuing bonus.More later ... but (ymmv) I am confirming :)CheersMike -------- Original message --------From: Carsten Fuchs <carsten.fu...@cafu.de> Date: 26/12/19 20:01 (GMT+10:00) To: django-users@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Changing to a custom user model mid-project Hello Mike,unfortunately I cannot answer your questions, but have you considered contacting Tobias directly?I too am currently at the point of switching two of my projects to a custom user model. But honestly, Tobias' procedure looks complicated and error prone to me. Aymeric's description doesn't cover some of the details (some of your and Tobias' steps are needed there too), but at least for me it is easier to understand and therefore I feel more comfortable with it.I was wondering though if I properly understand the downside of Aymeric's approach: All that it means is that once it is done, we cannot checkout an earlier version of the code across the breaking step and un-apply the migrations that were added since then?Except in trivial circumstances, I've never done this anyway, and considering the lower complexity, it seems a small price to pay.Can anyone confirm this?Best regards,CarstenAm 20.12.19 um 05:12 schrieb Mike Dewhirst:> I'm documenting[*] the process I followed but have come to a gray area and need some expert assistance.> > Having achieved a working system with a new database table containing all the existing data and now called ...> > public.common_user> > ... I notice that it has a user_id sequence called ...> > public.auth_user_id_seq> > ... along with similarly named sequences for similarly named tables which now exist as common_... tables.> > I can easily enough rename those sequences so they match the owning tables - and I want to do so - but the question is should it be done via raw SQL within the migration system?> > Is there a proper way to align the names?> > Another way (which I've tested) is to edit a database dump and reload that.> > What is the correct approach? Is it even legal (ORM rules) to rename the table?> > Thanks for any advice> > Mike> > > > > [*] https://www.caktusgroup.com/blog/2019/04/26/how-switch-custom-django-user-model-mid-project/ by Tobias McNulty as a variation of Django docs https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/2.2/topics/auth/customizing/#changing-to-a-custom-user-model-mid-project> > TL;DR> > Custom user documentation (UNFINISHED DRAFT)> > Based on Tobias McNulty's "How to Switch to a Custom Django User Model Mid-Project"[1]> > Assumptions> - Existing project without a custom user model> - All migrations are up to date and deployed in production> - Existing auth_user table has data which must be kept> - Relationships with other models exist and must be kept> > Strategy> > There are two strategies. One is to throw away history, delete all migrations, empty (truncate) the migrations table and start again.[2] Very attractive if the project repo is young and history is fresh and therefore disposable.> > The other strategy is to use the migration system to make the switch, ensuring nothing breaks. That is the Tobias approach and the one documented here.> > This strategy is a genuine bottleneck. All pending changes must be completed and fully deployed before starting and no planned changes are commenced until after the switch is fully deployed.> > Objective> > - Completely align development, staging and production systems> - Series of new migrations> - Series of sql commands to adjust content_type records> - Series of scripts to execute migrations and sql commands> > Process> > 1. Ensure all references to User everywhere (including 3rd party apps) are indirect[3][4]. Ensure all code concerned with access control and relying on users or user authentication is covered by unit tests as far as possible and all tests are passing.> > > 2. Make migrations and apply them. Ensure development, staging and production systems are all synchronised and each database (structure) is identical. This starts the bottleneck.> > > 3. Start a new app or use an existing one which has no models.py. The reason there needs to be initially no models is the migration which creates the custom user must be '0001_initial.py' to persuade Django there are no dependency issues. In this documentation I call the app "common" but it can be anything eg "proj_user", "accounts" etc.> > python manage.py startapp common> > > 4. Write a new common/models.py ...> > from django.db import models> from django.contrib.auth.models import AbstractUser> > > class User(AbstractUser):> """ Retain the model name 'User' to avoid unnecessary refactoring during> the switchover process. Make no other changes here until after complete> deployment to production.> """> class Meta:> # use the existing Django users table for the initial migration> db_table = "auth_user"> > > 5. Write a new common/admin.py> > from django.contrib import admin> from django.contrib.auth.admin import UserAdmin> from .models import User> > > admin.site.register(User, UserAdmin)> > > 6. Include the new app in settings.py among other local apps and adjust AUTH_USER_MODEL ...> > INSTALLED_APPS = [> # ...> 'common',> ]> > AUTH_USER_MODEL = 'common.User'> > > 7. Make the initial migration to create the new User model ...> > python manage.py makemigrations --> common/migrations/0001_initial.py> > > 8. Write a script to deploy (rather than execute) the migration as follows ... [5]> > Windows 10 - PostgreSQL 10 ...> > :: deploy_migration.bat> :: defeat Django's sanity check by manually entering that migration in the database> :: and for good measure update content_types to avoid further Django sanity checks> > set host=dev_laptop> set dbowner=whoever> > psql --username=%dbowner% --port=5432 --dbname=ssds --host=%host% --command "INSERT INTO public.django_migrations (app, name, applied) VALUES ('common', '0001_initial', CURRENT_TIMESTAMP)";> > psql --username=%dbowner% --port=5432 --dbname=ssds --host=%host% --command "UPDATE public.django_content_type SET app_label = 'common' WHERE app_label = 'auth' and model = 'user'";> > > Linux (Ubuntu 18.04) - PostgreSQL 10 ...> > # fetch_ssds.py [6]> # These next two psql command lines fake an initial migration to create> # a custom-user in a pre-existing project and adjust content_types to> # prevent Django from barfing if it automatically tried to add them> #> import os> > host="dev_laptop"> dbowner="whoever"> > cmd = "sudo psql --username=%s --port=5432 --dbname=ssds --host=%s --command \"INSERT INTO public.django_migrations (app, name, applied) VALUES ('common', '0001_initial', CURRENT_TIMESTAMP);\"" % (dbowner, host)> #> os.system(cmd)> #> cmd = "sudo psql --username=%s --port=5432 --dbname=ssds --host=%s --command \"UPDATE public.django_content_type SET app_label = 'common' WHERE app_label = 'auth' and model = 'user';\"" % (dbowner, host)> #> os.system(cmd)> > > 9. After deploying with the above technique in development run all unit tests and correct any errors or failures both in project code and in the above scripts. Refresh the development database (structure) from production (again) and repeat step 8 above and test again. All unit tests must pass. Important - repeat until perfect.> > > 10. Deploy to staging using one of the above scripts from step 8, modified for the staging environment. When perfectly deployed on staging and all testing is done, ensure production is backed up then deploy to production in similar fashion. This ends the bottleneck.> > The balance of this process is optional> > > 11. To be written after resolving sequence naming questions> > > 12. Edit common/models.py then makemigrations to rename the table of existing users from auth_user to common_user. Finally migrate to execute the rename to common_user> > class User(AbstractUser):> """ Retain the model name 'User' to avoid unnecessary refactoring during> the switchover process. Make no other changes here until after complete> deployment to production.> > Comment out Meta entirely to migrate to the default table name> """> pass> > #class Meta:> # # use the existing Django users table for the initial migration> # db_table = "auth_user"> > > > [1] https://www.caktusgroup.com/blog/2019/04/26/how-switch-custom-django-user-model-mid-project/ by Tobias McNulty as a variation of Django docs https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/2.2/topics/auth/customizing/#changing-to-a-custom-user-model-mid-project> > [2] https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/25313#comment:2 by Aymeric Augustin> > [3] https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/2.2/topics/auth/customizing/#referencing-the-user-model> > [4] Note that get_user_model() cannot be called at the module level in any models.py file (and by extension any file that a models.py imports), since you'll end up with a circular import. Generally, it's easier to keep calls to get_user_model() inside a method whenever possible (so it's called at run time rather than load time), and use settings.AUTH_USER_MODEL in all other cases. This isn't always possible (e.g., when creating a ModelForm), but the less you use it at the module level, the fewer circular imports you'll have to stumble your way through. (From Tobias [1])> > [5] Tobias notes that Django won't permit 'migrate common --fake-initial' if there are other migrations which include settings.AUTH_USER_MODEL> > [6] fetch_ssds.py is a comprehensive auto-deployment script. Only the relevant (and simplified) portion is shown.> > -- 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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.to view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-users/0eb107a7-cefe-fa3f-e145-088225c084d9%40cafu.de.
-- 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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-users/5e04a086.1c69fb81.484db.03b0SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
