This page shows the source for this entry, with WebCore formatting language tags and attributes highlighted.


Working with EF Migrations and branches


<abstract>The version of EF Migrations discussed in this article is 5.0.20627. The version of Quino is less relevant: the features discussed have been supported for years. For those in a hurry, there is a <a href="#tldr"><abbr>tl;dr</abbr> near the end of the article.</a></abstract> We use Microsoft Entity Framework (EF) Migrations in one of our projects where we are unable to use Quino. We were initially happy to be able to automate database-schema changes. After using it for a while, we have decidedly mixed feelings. As developers of our own schema migration for the Quino ORM, we're always on the lookout for new and better ideas to improve our own product. If we can't use Quino, we try to optimize our development process in each project to cause as little pain as possible. <h>EF Migrations and branches</h> We ran into problems in integrating EF Migrations into a development process that uses feature branches. As long as a developer stays on a given branch, there are no problems and EF functions relatively smoothly.<fn> However, if a developer switches to a different branch---with different migrations---EF Migrations is decidedly less helpful. It is, in fact, quite cryptic and blocks progress until you figure out what's going on. Assume the following not-uncommon situation: <ul> The project is created in the <var>master</var> branch The project has an initial migration <var>BASE</var> Developers A and B migrate their databases to <var>BASE</var> Developer A starts branch feature/A and includes migration <var>A</var> in her database Developer B starts branch feature/B and includes migration <var>B</var> in his database </ul> We now have the situation in which two branches have different code <i>and</i> each has its own database schema. Switching from one branch to another with Git quickly and easily addresses the code differences. The database is, unfortunately, a different story. Let's assume that developer A switches to branch feature/B to continue working there. The natural thing for A to do is to call "update-database" from the Package Manager Console<fn>. This yields the following message---all-too-familiar to EF Migrations developers. <img src="{att_link}ef_outdated_warning.png" href="{att_link}ef_outdated_warning.png" align="none" caption="EF Migrations pending-changes warning" scale="50%"> <bq>Unable to update database to match the current model because there are pending changes and automatic migration is disabled. Either write the pending changes to a code-based migration or enable automatic migration. [...]</bq> This situation happens regularly when working with multiple branches. It's even possible to screw up a commit within a single branch, as illustrated in the following real-world example. <ul> Add two fields to an existing class Generate a migration with code that adds two fields Migrate the database Realize that you don't need one of the two fields Remove the C# code from the migration for that field Tests run green Commit everything and push it </ul> As far as you're concerned, you committed a single field to the model. When your co-worker runs that migration, it will be applied, but EF Migrations immediately thereafter complains that there are pending model changes to make. How can that be? <h>Out-of-sync migrations != outdated database</h> Just to focus, we're actually trying to get real work done, not necessarily debug EF Migrations. We want to answer the following questions: <ol> Why is EF Migrations having a problem updating the schema? How do I quickly and reliably update my database to use the current schema if EF Migrations refuses to do it? </ol> The underlying reason why EF Migrations has problems is that it does not actually know what the schema of the database is. It doesn't read the schema from the database itself, but relies instead on a copy of the EF model that it stored in the database when it last performed a successful migration. That copy of the model is also stored in the resource file generated for the migration. EF Migrations does this so that the migration includes information about which changes it needs to apply <i>and</i> about the model to which the change can be applied. If the model stored in the database does not match the model stored with the migration that you're trying to apply, EF Migrations will not update the database. This is probably for the best, but leads us to the second question above: what do we have to do to get the database updated? <h>Generate a migration for those "pending changes"</h> The answer has already been hinted at above: we need to fix the model stored in the database for the last migration. Let's take a look at the situation above in which your colleague downloaded what you thought was a clean commit. From the Package Manager Console, run <c>add-migration foo</c> to scaffold a migration for the so-called "pending changes" that EF Migrations detected. That's interesting: EF Migrations thinks that your colleague should generate a migration to drop the column that you'd only temporarily added but never checked in. That is, the column isn't in his database, it's not in your database, but EF Migrations is convinced that it was once in the model and must be dropped. How does EF Migrations even <i>know</i> about a column that you added to your own database but that you removed from the code before committing? What dark magic is this? The answer is probably obvious: you <i>did</i> check in the change. The part that you can easily remove (the C# code) is only half of the migration. As mentioned above, the other part is a binary chunk stored in the resource file associated with each migration. These BLOBS are stored in the table <c>_MigrationHistory</c> table in the database. <img align="left" src="{att_link}ef_migration_table.png" caption="DB Migration History table"><img align="left" src="{att_link}ef_binary_migration_data.png" caption="Migration data is stored as binary data"> <clear><h><anchor id="tldr">How to fix this problem and get back to work</h> Here's the tl;dr: generate a "fake" migration, remove all of the C# code that would apply changes to the database (shown below) and execute <c>update-database</c> from the Package Manager Console. <img src="{att_link}empty_migration.png" align="none" caption="An empty migration"> This may look like it does exactly nothing. What actually happens is that it includes the current state of the EF model in the binary data for the <i>last</i> migration applied to the database (because you just applied it). Once you've applied the migration, <i>delete the files and remove them from the project</i>. This migration was only generated to fix your local database; do <i>not</i> commit it. <h>Everything's cool now, right?</h> Applying the fix above doesn't mean that you won't get database errors. If your database schema does <i>not</i> actually match the application model, EF will crash when it assumes fields or tables are available which do not exist in your database. Sometimes, the only way to <i>really</i> clean up a damaged database---especially if you don't have the code for the migrations that were applied there<fn>---is to remove the misapplied migrations from your database, undo all of the changes to the schema (manually, of course) and then generate a new migration that starts from a known good schema. <h>Conclusions and comparison to Quino</h> The obvious answer to the complaint "it hurts when I do this" is "stop doing that". We would dearly love to avoid these EF Migrations-related issues but developing without any schema-migration support is even more unthinkable. We'd have to create upgrade scripts manually or would have to maintain scripts to generate a working development database and this in each branch. When branches are merged, the database-upgrade scripts have to be merged and tested as well. This would be a significant addition to our development process, has maintainability and quality issues and would probably slow us down even more. And we're certainly not going to stop developing with branches, either. We were hoping to avoid all of this pain by using EF Migrations. That EF Migrations makes us think of going back to manual schema migration is proof that it's not nearly as elegant a solution as our own Quino schema migration, which never gave us these problems. Quino actually reads the schema in the database and compares that model directly against the current application model. The schema migrator generates a custom list of differences that map from the current schema to the desired schema and applies them. There is user intervention but it's hardly ever really required. This is an absolute godsend during development where we can freely switch between branches without any hassle.<fn> Quino doesn't recognize "upgrade" versus "downgrade" but instead applies "changes". This paradigm has proven to be a much better fit for our agile, multi-branch style of development and lets us focus on our actual work rather than fighting with tools and libraries. <hr> <ft>EF Migrations as we use it is tightly bound to SQL Server. Just as one example, the inability of SQL Server to resolve cyclic cascade dependencies is in no way shielded by EF Migrations. Though the drawback originates in SQL Server, EF Migrations simply propagates it to the developer, even though it purports to provide an abstraction layer. Quino, on the other hand, does the heavy lifting of managing triggers to circumvent this limitation.</ft> <ft>As an aside, this is a spectacularly misleading name for a program feature. It should just be called "Console".</ft> <ft>I haven't ever been able to use the <c>Downgrade</c> method that is generated with each migration, but perhaps someone with more experience could explain how to properly apply such a thing. If that doesn't work, the method outlined above is your only fallback.</ft> <ft>The aforementioned database-script maintenance or having only very discrete schema-update points or maintaining a database per branch and switching with configuration files or using database backups or any other schemes that end up distracting you from working.</ft>