fixes migrations for layers and maps

[cspanring]

Removes duplicates in layer migrations and adds a layer migration dependency to maps migrations. closes #471

[matthewhanson]

I'm still getting an error when running migrate, though different column and model this time:

django.db.utils.DatabaseError: column "geographic_bounding_box" of relation "layers_layer" does not exist

[ischneider]

does it make sense to collapse all the migrations into a single cumulative migration for each app, i.e. pre-dev -> dev?

[ingenieroariel]

I second Ian's idea.

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Ian Schneider [email protected]:

does it make sense to collapse all the migrations into a single cumulative
migration for each app, i.e. pre-dev -> dev?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/472#issuecomment-9820209.

[jj0hns0n]

Fwiw, in mainline dev, the migrations are just not used anymore, they are
bypassed with a syncdb --all

Im also +1 on 'squashing' these down into a single migration from 1.2final
to 2.0alpha1 Not sure how we can best do that, but thats the best plan I
think.

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Ariel Núñez [email protected]:

I second Ian's idea.

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Ian Schneider [email protected]:

does it make sense to collapse all the migrations into a single
cumulative
migration for each app, i.e. pre-dev -> dev?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<
https://github.com/GeoNode/geonode/pull/472#issuecomment-9820209>.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/472#issuecomment-9820716.

[ingenieroariel]

Jeff, just to clarify, I consider Ian's approach of one migration per app
to be better than just one single migration. They both have the same goal.

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Jeffrey Johnson
[email protected]:

Fwiw, in mainline dev, the migrations are just not used anymore, they are
bypassed with a syncdb --all

Im also +1 on 'squashing' these down into a single migration from 1.2final
to 2.0alpha1 Not sure how we can best do that, but thats the best plan I
think.

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Ariel Núñez [email protected]:

I second Ian's idea.

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Ian Schneider [email protected]:

does it make sense to collapse all the migrations into a single
cumulative
migration for each app, i.e. pre-dev -> dev?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<
https://github.com/GeoNode/geonode/pull/472#issuecomment-9820209>.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<
https://github.com/GeoNode/geonode/pull/472#issuecomment-9820716>.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/472#issuecomment-9820914.

[matthewhanson]

Migration per app seems like the best solution to me too.

Jeff - I can't find what the --all switch is supposed to do to syncdb, it does not appear in the django documentation.

[jj0hns0n]

Thats what I mean. One per app, but one jump from 1.2 to 2.0 instead of
incremental.

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Ariel Núñez [email protected]:

Jeff, just to clarify, I consider Ian's approach of one migration per app
to be better than just one single migration. They both have the same goal.

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Jeffrey Johnson
[email protected]:

Fwiw, in mainline dev, the migrations are just not used anymore, they
are
bypassed with a syncdb --all

Im also +1 on 'squashing' these down into a single migration from
1.2final
to 2.0alpha1 Not sure how we can best do that, but thats the best plan I
think.

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Ariel Núñez [email protected]:

I second Ian's idea.

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Ian Schneider <
[email protected]>wrote:

does it make sense to collapse all the migrations into a single
cumulative
migration for each app, i.e. pre-dev -> dev?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<
https://github.com/GeoNode/geonode/pull/472#issuecomment-9820209>.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<
https://github.com/GeoNode/geonode/pull/472#issuecomment-9820716>.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<
https://github.com/GeoNode/geonode/pull/472#issuecomment-9820914>.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/472#issuecomment-9821096.

[jj0hns0n]

Its just bypasses the migrations and does a normal syncdb as if you didnt
have south setup.

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Matthew Hanson
[email protected]:

Migration per app seems like the best solution to me too.

Jeff - I can't find what the --all switch is supposed to do to syncdb, it
does not appear in the django documentation.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/472#issuecomment-9821183.

[ingenieroariel]

But that did not help Jenkins succeed in running the tests, right? Do you
have any idea why?

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Jeffrey Johnson
[email protected]:

Its just bypasses the migrations and does a normal syncdb as if you didnt
have south setup.

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Matthew Hanson
[email protected]:

Migration per app seems like the best solution to me too.

Jeff - I can't find what the --all switch is supposed to do to syncdb,
it
does not appear in the django documentation.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<
https://github.com/GeoNode/geonode/pull/472#issuecomment-9821183>.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/472#issuecomment-9821205.

[jj0hns0n]

I dont, something very strange up with jenkins. @ischneider and I both
logged into that machine and ran the tests in the same place and in the
same way that jenkins should be running them, and they pass. They only fail
when run this way. I will look into it eventually.

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Ariel Núñez [email protected]:

But that did not help Jenkins succeed in running the tests, right? Do you
have any idea why?

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Jeffrey Johnson
[email protected]:

Its just bypasses the migrations and does a normal syncdb as if you
didnt
have south setup.

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Matthew Hanson
[email protected]:

Migration per app seems like the best solution to me too.

Jeff - I can't find what the --all switch is supposed to do to syncdb,
it
does not appear in the django documentation.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<
https://github.com/GeoNode/geonode/pull/472#issuecomment-9821183>.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<
https://github.com/GeoNode/geonode/pull/472#issuecomment-9821205>.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/472#issuecomment-9821262.

[cspanring]

I could start working on one 1.2=>2.0 migration per app, if that's still the plan. Just let me know or create an issue for it.

[jj0hns0n]

Im guessing that once @tomkralidis is finished with the modifications to
the ResourceBase class, we will have no more DB changes before the first
alpha, which means that it makes sense to start working on the migration.
Christian, it would be great if you could take the lead on this.

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Christian Spanring <
[email protected]> wrote:

I could start working on one 1.2=>2.0 migration per app, if that's still
the plan. Just let me know or create an issue for it.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/472#issuecomment-10759068.

[capooti]

Hi all
this is a first attemp: capooti@ded2623
now I can succesfully migrate from 1.2 to latest dev branch. I will test it more deeply in the next days, and eventually collapse all the scripts in one script per app if this is the preferred way to go