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.

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

[WIP] - v4-beta.1 #507

Closed
wants to merge 5 commits into from
Closed

[WIP] - v4-beta.1 #507

wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

mfridman
Copy link
Collaborator

@mfridman mfridman commented Apr 25, 2023

This is a continuation of #502

The goal of these branches is to continue polishing up the /v4 release, making sure the packeg/CLI is correct, idiomatic, has good test coverage and supports the main features.

There will be breaking changes along the alpha branches, less in the beta, and little in the release candidates.

Note, to actually ship this chunk of work and the documentation, blogs, etc. I'm going to start cutting scope for items that can be added post-launch, such as the grouped migrations feature, JSON support and a few other nice-to-have (but not critical) items.

beta.N

  • Revisit method-specific options vs provider options, see comment
  • Add mutex to *goose.Provider (maybe?)
  • Add back mysql-specific -certfile, -ssl-cert, and -ssl-key
  • Fix CLI output

rc.N

  • Add goose validate command

Post stable v4

  • Add -json support
  • Add support for Grouped Migrations feature

@mfridman mfridman mentioned this pull request Apr 25, 2023
12 tasks
@mfridman
Copy link
Collaborator Author

To actually ship something, I'm going to cut scope and ship a /v4 with items that can be added in subsequent point releases.

@mfridman mfridman force-pushed the v4-beta.1 branch 2 times, most recently from 3bb36e5 to 6ebf925 Compare May 5, 2023 13:18
@mfridman
Copy link
Collaborator Author

mfridman commented May 5, 2023

A thought, instead of forcing users to exclude files, what if goose was opinionated in the files it parsed. Something I've been thinking about from this #331 (comment)

For example, goose will scan for .sql and .go (not including _test.go) files in the given directory and exclude all other files.

This would allow folks to have a ./migrations folder with ./scripts, a README.md file and all sorts of other directories and files.

Not sure, just a thought ..

@ori-shalom
Copy link
Contributor

A thought, instead of forcing users to exclude files, what if goose was opinionated in the files it parsed. Something I've been thinking about from this #331 (comment)

For example, goose will scan for .sql and .go (not including _test.go) files in the given directory and exclude all other files.

A use case for having other go files that are not tests or migrations in the same package is if we have multiple go migrations and we want them to use some shared code.

This shared code ideally will be private functions/constants in the same package because they are relevant only for migrations and there no point in putting them in another package and makes them public.

@ori-shalom
Copy link
Contributor

ori-shalom commented May 8, 2023

If we are OK with introducing a breaking change in v4 then maybe #513 is a good candidate to make the package more idiomatic.

I currently implemented it here #517 in a backward-compatible way but maybe some code can be simplified if we drop the old methods that don't receive context.

@mfridman
Copy link
Collaborator Author

mfridman commented May 8, 2023

If we are OK with introducing a breaking change in v4 then maybe #513 is a good candidate to make the package more idiomatic.

I currently implemented it here #517 in a backward-compatible way but maybe some code can be simplified if we drop the old methods that don't receive context.

The /v4 module already has context threaded through the entire package and all (or at least most) methods take a ctx context.Context. There are a few breaking changes, but afaics it's the only way to evolve this package.

Fwiw there was already a PR to accomplish this. #195. I think it makes sense to add one of these PR's into the /v3 module.

@mfridman
Copy link
Collaborator Author

mfridman commented May 19, 2023

Alright, here's the *goose.Provider methods so far. The checkmark indicates which methods are safe to call concurrently and a test has been added in 6e2416e

✔ func (p *Provider) ApplyVersion
✔ func (p *Provider) Down
✔ func (p *Provider) DownTo
✔ func (p *Provider) GetDBVersion
  func (p *Provider) ListSources
✔ func (p *Provider) Ping
  func (p *Provider) Redo
✔ func (p *Provider) Status
✔ func (p *Provider) Up
✔ func (p *Provider) UpByOne
✔ func (p *Provider) UpTo

Copy link

@roblaszczak roblaszczak left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hey @mfridman!

Great job with this PR! I have a use case when I need to run two types of migrations within one application. They should be versioned separately and executed independently. It was not possible in v3 (due to the global state), but with v4, it seems to work after initial investigation.

As it's beta, I wanted to ensure at which stage the update is. During that, I found two things that may be worth considering before release. If something is not clear, please let me know!

Comment on lines +221 to +229
case LockModeAdvisorySession:
if err := p.store.LockSession(ctx, conn); err != nil {
p.mu.Unlock()
return nil, nil, err
}
cleanup = func() error {
defer p.mu.Unlock()
return errors.Join(p.store.UnlockSession(ctx, conn), conn.Close())
}

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@mfridman, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I am right with such a scenario:

  1. I assume that I'm running application from the level of the application. During application start, I'm running Provider.Up()
  2. We have our application in version 1 with all migrations applied
  3. We are deploying an application with version 2 and long-running migration
  4. I assume that the application in version 2 is not healthy yet (so deploy is not considered as done)
  5. During the execution of the long-running migration, old instances of service in version 1 are killed and are re-created (in version 1)
  6. Service in version 1 is not able to start because lock is acquired here
  7. 💥 our application is down because new instances are not able to start and old are dead

What I would expect:

  1. We have our application in version 1 with all migrations applied
  2. We are deploying an application with version 2 and long-running migration
  3. I assume that the application in version 2 is not healthy yet (so deploy is not considered as done)
  4. During the execution of the long-running migration, old instances of service in version 1 are killed and are re-created (in version 1)
  5. Service in version 1 checks that all migrations were applied and doesn't acquire the lock and starts properly
  6. New instances of application in version 1 start properly
  7. Long-running migration of version 2 finish
  8. Application instances in version 1 are removed
  9. 🎉

I wasn't analyzing it very deeply, but maybe the logic here can stay as is, but maybe we could check if all migrations were applied outside of trasnsaction/lock safely. If migrations are up to date, there is no point of acquiring lock.

If versions are not up to date, we can query versions again (as we do now), but now within transaction and lock.

As a workaround, I could create two providers with almost identical config, but with different lock settings.
In that case, I can at the startup check migration status without lock, and run Provider.Up only if they were not applied migrations. But it's a question if it shouldn't work like that out of the box.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@mfridman mfridman Jul 19, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You're spot on, that's exactly how it'd work. app 2 would acquire the lock, and if app 1 is restarted (for any reason) it would fail to come up because the lock is held by the (not-yet-ready) app 2.

By status, do you mean comparing against the last applied migration? I think this would work for sequential migrations, but we'd also have to account for out-of-order migrations.

A crude way would be to list all db versions and compared them against the migration files. If there's 100% parity then we can exit early. I believe this would work for both sequential and out-of-order migrations.

There's an edge case here, if app 2 has two migrations to apply, a fast one and a long-running one, then app 1 could see a view of the world that is different.

E.g., we have 1,2,3 applied and then app 2 starts running with migrations 4, 5.

  • migration 4 gets applied immediately.
  • migration 5 is long-running
  • app 1 is restarted, it sees 1,2,3,4 in the goose db table.. but it only knows about 1,2,3 (migrations from filesystem)
  • should app 1 exit with no error here?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@mfridman mfridman Apr 21, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks again for the detailed report, I went ahead and implemented this in #751 and it's natively baked into the *goose.Provider now, which exposes both the .HasPending() method and also a pre-check in the .Up set of methods.

// string "goose". This is used to ensure that the lock is unique to goose.
//
// crc64.Checksum([]byte("goose"), crc64.MakeTable(crc64.ECMA))
defaultLockID int64 = 5887940537704921958

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It would be awesome to have the ability to configure that. It would allow to use goose in scenarios where:

  1. Two applications are using the same database (doesn't sound unlikely)
  2. You want to run two different migrations in parallel (it's the use case that I may have).

default:
return ErrLockNotImplemented
}
return retry.Do(ctx, s.retryLock, fn)

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It would be nice to have the ability to decide if we want to retry (in other words - if migration can't just return an error when migrations are locked) or how many times we want to retry.

For now, we can just cancel context, but we don't know if we are stuck on mock or in the mgiration.

//
// The only database that currently supports locking is Postgres. Other databases will return
// ErrLockNotImplemented.
type Locker interface {

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Any plans to allow to use user-provided Locker?

I can imagine that someone may want to implement a custom one (for example Redis based) locker.

@mfridman
Copy link
Collaborator Author

mfridman commented Jul 18, 2023

Hey @mfridman!

Great job with this PR! I have a use case when I need to run two types of migrations within one application. They should be versioned separately and executed independently. It was not possible in v3 (due to the global state), but with v4, it seems to work after initial investigation.

As it's beta, I wanted to ensure at which stage the update is. During that, I found two things that may be worth considering before release. If something is not clear, please let me know!

Hey @roblaszczak, thank you for the feedback. Indeed one of the motivations is to enable multiple providers within the same runtime and eliminate as much all global state.

Realistically, the work on the /v4 branch is ~85% (rough ballpark). There are still a few things left, and I plan to publish a series of posts on why we're creating a new major release and what are the changes and future steps. On that last point, I think getting this project into a stable state will allow us to add more interesting user features while hopefully keeping the tool simple for the default case.

https://pressly.github.io/goose/blog/

Over the next few days/weeks, I'll address the comments and if you have additional feedback regarding the implementation or even the user-facing API surface do share your thoughts.

ps. My goal was to have a stable release candidate by the end of the summer, so we're looking at a good few months.

@roblaszczak
Copy link

Hey @mfridman! I spent some time looking at how it could be possible to improve the Locker configuration (so it's possible to change the lock ID and provide a custom locker).

If you feel that it may be useful, feel free to accept the PR (or modify it in any way): #575

@mfridman
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Closing this PR in favor of the feature that landed in a backwards-compatible way in the /v3 module in v3.16.0.

Check out the blog post which has a bunch more details:

https://pressly.github.io/goose/blog/2023/goose-provider/

@mfridman mfridman closed this Nov 12, 2023
github-merge-queue bot referenced this pull request in infratographer/x Aug 8, 2024
[![Mend
Renovate](https://app.renovatebot.com/images/banner.svg)](https://renovatebot.com)

This PR contains the following updates:

| Package | Change | Age | Adoption | Passing | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [github.com/pressly/goose/v3](https://togithub.com/pressly/goose) |
`v3.19.2` -> `v3.21.1` |
[![age](https://developer.mend.io/api/mc/badges/age/go/github.com%2fpressly%2fgoose%2fv3/v3.21.1?slim=true)](https://docs.renovatebot.com/merge-confidence/)
|
[![adoption](https://developer.mend.io/api/mc/badges/adoption/go/github.com%2fpressly%2fgoose%2fv3/v3.21.1?slim=true)](https://docs.renovatebot.com/merge-confidence/)
|
[![passing](https://developer.mend.io/api/mc/badges/compatibility/go/github.com%2fpressly%2fgoose%2fv3/v3.19.2/v3.21.1?slim=true)](https://docs.renovatebot.com/merge-confidence/)
|
[![confidence](https://developer.mend.io/api/mc/badges/confidence/go/github.com%2fpressly%2fgoose%2fv3/v3.19.2/v3.21.1?slim=true)](https://docs.renovatebot.com/merge-confidence/)
|

---

### Release Notes

<details>
<summary>pressly/goose (github.com/pressly/goose/v3)</summary>

###
[`v3.21.1`](https://togithub.com/pressly/goose/blob/HEAD/CHANGELOG.md#v3211)

[Compare
Source](https://togithub.com/pressly/goose/compare/v3.21.0...v3.21.1)

- Add `GetVersions` method to `goose.Provider`, returns the current (max
db) version and the latest
(max filesystem) version.
([#&#8203;756](https://togithub.com/pressly/goose/issues/756))

- Clarify `GetLatestVersion` method MUST return `ErrVersionNotFound` if
no latest migration is
found. Previously it was returning a -1 and nil error, which was
inconsistent with the rest of the
    API surface.

- Add `GetLatestVersion` implementations to all existing dialects. This
is an optimization to avoid
loading all migrations when only the latest version is needed. This uses
the `max` function in SQL
to get the latest version_id irrespective of the order of applied
migrations.
- Refactor existing portions of the code to use the new
`GetLatestVersion` method.

###
[`v3.21.0`](https://togithub.com/pressly/goose/blob/HEAD/CHANGELOG.md#v3210)

[Compare
Source](https://togithub.com/pressly/goose/compare/v3.20.0...v3.21.0)

-   Retracted. Broken release, please use v3.21.1 instead.

###
[`v3.20.0`](https://togithub.com/pressly/goose/blob/HEAD/CHANGELOG.md#v3200)

[Compare
Source](https://togithub.com/pressly/goose/compare/v3.19.2...v3.20.0)

- Expand the `Store` interface by adding a `GetLatestVersion` method and
make the interface public.
- Add a (non-blocking) method to check if there are pending migrations
to the `goose.Provider`
    ([#&#8203;751](https://togithub.com/pressly/goose/issues/751)):

```go
func (p *Provider) HasPending(context.Context) (bool, error) {}
```

The underlying implementation **does not respect the `SessionLocker`**
(if one is enabled) and can
be used to check for pending migrations without blocking or being
blocked by other operations.

- The methods `.Up`, `.UpByOne`, and `.UpTo` from `goose.Provider` will
invoke `.HasPending` before
acquiring a lock with `SessionLocker` (if enabled). This addresses an
edge case in
Kubernetes-style deployments where newer pods with long-running
migrations prevent older pods -
which have all known migrations applied - from starting up due to an
advisory lock. For more

detail[https://github.com/pressly/goose/pull/507#discussion_r1266498077](https://togithub.com/pressly/goose/pull/507#discussion_r1266498077)_r1266498077
and [#&#8203;751](https://togithub.com/pressly/goose/issues/751).
- Move integration tests to `./internal/testing` and make it a separate
Go module. This will allow
us to have a cleaner top-level go.mod file and avoid imports unrelated
to the goose project. See

[integration/README.md](https://togithub.com/pressly/goose/blob/d0641b5bfb3bd5d38d95fe7a63d7ddf2d282234d/internal/testing/integration/README.md)
    for more details. This shouldn't affect users of the goose library.

</details>

---

### Configuration

📅 **Schedule**: Branch creation - At any time (no schedule defined),
Automerge - At any time (no schedule defined).

🚦 **Automerge**: Disabled by config. Please merge this manually once you
are satisfied.

♻ **Rebasing**: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the
rebase/retry checkbox.

🔕 **Ignore**: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update
again.

---

- [ ] <!-- rebase-check -->If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check
this box

---

This PR was generated by [Mend
Renovate](https://www.mend.io/free-developer-tools/renovate/). View the
[repository job log](https://developer.mend.io/github/infratographer/x).

<!--renovate-debug:eyJjcmVhdGVkSW5WZXIiOiIzOC4yMC4xIiwidXBkYXRlZEluVmVyIjoiMzguMjAuMSIsInRhcmdldEJyYW5jaCI6Im1haW4iLCJsYWJlbHMiOltdfQ==-->

Co-authored-by: renovate[bot] <29139614+renovate[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
@mfridman mfridman deleted the v4-beta.1 branch September 17, 2024 12:59
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants