Here is my situation. I have an extensive REST based API that connects to a MongoDB database using Mongoose. The API is written as a standard "MEAN" stack application.
Currently, when a developer queries the API they're always connecting to the live production database. What I want to do is have an exact duplicate database as a "staging" database, where new data will be added first, vetted over a period of time, and then move to the live database. Then I want developers to be able to query either one simply by modifying their query.
I started looking into this with the Mongoose documentation, and it appears as though the models are tied to the DB connection, and if I want to have multiple connections I also have to have multiple models, one for each connection. This would be a nightmare of WET code and not the path I want to take.
What I want to do is not touch any of my code at all and simply have a switch that changes to the proper database for a given query. So my question is, how can I achieve this? Is it possible? The documentation seems to imply it is not.
Rather than trying to maintain connections two environments in the same code base have you considered setting up stage version of your application? Which database it connects to could be set through an environment variable or some other configuration option.
The developers would still then only have to make a change to query one or the other and you could migrate data from the stage database to production/live database once you have finished your vetting process.
Related
I have NodeJS app that uses MongoDB as database. I'm using native mongo driver (not mongoess).
The application allow users to work on projects and share them and the logic that decide which projects a user is allowed to see is built as mongo criteria selector.
In order to test that I've found TingoDB which looks like a great candidate for mocking the MongoDB to be able to run the real model code and check that it is working.
My question is what is the best way to load the initial data? keep it in separate file? Keep it as another model?
Thank you,
Ido.
TingoDB actually stores it's data in flat-files, so if you want, you could just keep a copy of the database in a directory and load that.
However, if you're just testing with a small amount of data, you'd probably be better off keeping the test-data as in your testing scripts, and inserting it through your application as part of the test. That way, you can easily compare the data in the application to the data you loaded in your assertions.
Finally, if you're running MongoDB in production, then you should probably use MongoDB in your tests. While they do have nearly identical APIs, they have very different performance, which should be something you're keeping track of in testing. Unless there's a need to use TingoDB during testing, I'd try to make it as similar to the production environment as possible.
I am developping an ASP.Net MVC 5 application that will be a SaaS for my clients. I want to use EF6 and I am currently using localDb. I am an Entity Framwork beginner and I am having a hard time learning it. I have been searching the web for the last 2 days, found different approaches but never found something clear for me that would answers my questions.
I followed Scott Allen Tutorial on ASP.Net MVC 4 and 5 so currently, I have 2 contexts, 'IdendityDbContext' and 'MyAppDbContext' both pointing to the DefaultConnection sting using a database called MyAppDb.mdf
I want my customers to be able to login on the website and connect to their own database so I was planning on creating a new ConnectionString (and database) for each of my clients and keeping one ConnectionString for my client Accounts information using my IdendityDbContext.
I have plenty of questions but here the 2 most importants ones :
1) I am not sure how to do that and test it locally. Do I have to create new data connections for all my clients and when a client connect, I edit the connection string dynamically and pass it to 'MyAppContext' ?
2) Even if I am able to do this, let's say I have 200 customers, it means I will have 201 databases : 1 Account Database (IdentityDbContext) and 200 Client Databases (MyAppDbContext). If I change my model in the future, does it means I have to run package manager console migrations command line for each of the 200 databases ? This seems brutal. There must be a way to propagate my model easily on every clients database right?
Sorry for the long post and thank you very much in advance.
The answer to (1) is basically "yes", you need to do just that. The answer to (2) is that you'll have to run migrations against all the databases. I can't imagine how you would think there would be any other way to do it, you've got 200 separate databases that all need the same schema change. The only way to accomplish that is to run the same script (or migration) against each one of them. That's the downside of a single-tenant model like you've got.
A few things you should know since you're new to all of this. First, LocalDB is only for development. It's fine to use it while in development, but remember that you'll need a full SQL Server instance when it comes time to deploy. It's surprising how common a hangup this is, so I just want make sure you know out the gate.
Second, migrations, at least code-first migrations, are also for development. You should never run your code-first migrations against a production database. Not only would this require that you actually access the production database directly from Visual Studio, which is a pretty big no-no in and of itself, but nothing should ever happen on a production database unless you explicitly know what's changing, where. I have a write-up about how to migrate production databases that might be worth looking at.
For something like your 200 database scenario, though, it would probably be better to invest in something like this from Red Gate.
I'm currently building a rest api and I'm struggling to find the best way to unit test each route.
A route handler performs various things and one of them is to execute a query to mongodb. I can unit test the route handler by using stubs, but if I'm testing the query I cannot stub the query itself, I need to have an in-memory mongodb that I could reset and insert new data for each test.
How do you test queries? I'm thinking that the only real way to ensure that the query does what I need is to use a real mongodb database installed in the testing machine (typically in the same machine used for developing).
yes, just as for relation databases, you need to have real base. if mongo offers in-memory auto-created version then it's easy. if not, then each developer has to have running mongo before he runs integration tests. for CI you can have one single dedicated mongo but than you have to prevent concurrent access (schema creation, multiple transactions etc). you should also implement automatic creation of schema if needed and empty database before each test. in relational db rollback is usually enough. when it's not enough then trimming all tables helps. although we had to implement it manually as we couldn't find any existing tools
Good day! I have created an application using nodejs + mongoose and now I want to make something like a superuser application. I need my admin panel application to connect to the same database. So, i have a question.
Should i store the same Schema file in both applications to have an ability to use my Schema methods? In other words, what is the best way to create one more API using the same db?
Thank you!
If I'm not mistaken, why not create another service that only interacts with the database? That way, the systems will refer to the same schema/DB regardless of which application you want to connect to it. So the superuser application and the normal application will just query the DB microservice that interacts the database.
Pro: source of truth for the schema for all applications and the DB queries will just be API calls
Con: additional overhead in creating your ecosystem
If you are using the same DB from two different applications, you will want to make sure those schemas are the same between the two. If one changes its inputs, the other might need to change its display (or risk not expecting all that information). Keep all this in mind during your release process.
I would suggest making the schemas an external library to both, or have the admin panel require the current app. You'll avoid getting two sets out of sync and know to look at one place for the schema definitions.
I currently developed an app that connects to SQL Server 2005 database, so my DAL objects where generated using information from that DB.
It will also be possible to connect to an Oracle and MySQL db, all with the same table structures (aside from the normal differences in fields, such as varbinary(max) in SQL Server and BLOB in Oracle, and so on). For this purpose, I already defined multiple connection strings and multiple SubSonic providers for the different DB's the app will run on.
My question is, if I generated my objects using a SQL Server database, should the generated objects work transparently with the other DB's or do I need to generate a different DAL for each database engine I use? Should I be aware of any possible bugs I may encounter while performing these operations?
Thanks in advance for any advice on this issue.
I'm using SubSonic 2.2 by the way....
From what I've been able to test so far, I can't see an easy way to achieve what I'm trying to do.
The ideal situation for me would have been to generate SubSonic objects using SQL Server for example, and just be able to switch dynamically to MySQL by just creating at runtime the correct Provider for it along with its connection string. I got to a point where my app would correctly connect from SQL Server to a MySQL DB, but there's a point where the app fails since SubSonic internally generates queries of the form
SELECT * FROM dbo.MyTable
which MySQL doesn't support obviously. I also noticed queries that enclosed table names with brackets ([]), so it seems that there are a number of factors that would limit the use of one Provider along multiple DB engines.
I guess my only other option is to sort it out with multiple generated providers, although I must admit it does not make me comfortable knowing that I'll have N copies of basically the same classes along my project.
I would really love to hear from anyone else if they've had similar experiences. I'll be sure to post my results once I get everything sorted out and working for my project.
Has any of this changed in 3.0? This would definitely be a worthy reason for me to upgrade if life is any easier on this matter...