-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 393
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
Require upgrade from 2.x #4112
Require upgrade from 2.x #4112
Conversation
Tearing down https://woodpecker-ci-woodpecker-pr-4112.surge.sh |
What are the benefits of removing it? Else i just would let the upgrade path as wide as maintainable ... |
Less code, and especially because the migrations folder contains a lot of helper structs, but they're not always used properly. Migrations are really a somewhat critical part and requiring users to split it up can help to avoid problems if you try to upgrade from very old versions. We know that it works to upgrade from 1.x to 2.x and from 2.x to 3.x but we don't test upgrading 1.x to 3.x. |
Sounds like Nextcloud Approaching Upgrades. |
In general yes, but I wouldn't be that strict. Upgrading from any version to the next major should be possible (so e.g. 2.0 to 3.0) |
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #4112 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 26.97% 26.28% -0.69%
==========================================
Files 395 373 -22
Lines 27414 26918 -496
==========================================
- Hits 7395 7076 -319
+ Misses 19315 19190 -125
+ Partials 704 652 -52 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
How did you generate the new test database? |
Just executed it after commenting out the new migrations, so only those that were removed run. |
Remove old DB migrations and require users to upgrade to 2.x first.
I don't think this has a big impact as there won't be many still using 1.x, but not sure - what do you think about this?