-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 783
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
- Loading branch information
1 parent
80721e3
commit 20e9b66
Showing
4 changed files
with
0 additions
and
8 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
20e9b66
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are foreign key relations going to be added back?
IMHO foreign keys serves as an important data integration enforcement check for relational databases
20e9b66
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No, you can do this in your own app with the exported migrations if you want.
20e9b66
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Any reason why they were removed?
20e9b66
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@lucacri #1173
20e9b66
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
While I can see the issue they were causing, I don't think flat out removing them is necessarily the best. It's kinda like throwing out the good with the bad. As was mentioned foreign keys could of been added as a final migration step after all tables were created.
While a developer can modify the migration scripts after installing passport, each time there is an update they have to ensure there is nothing overridden or any table changes do not require alternation of the foreign key implementation. If they are willing to go that route then one could argue that is the risk they take but other would argue they shouldn't have to do this either.
20e9b66
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@robertdeboer we won't be reconsidering this, sorry.
20e9b66
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So instead of reordering the migrations to happen in the correct order, you'd rather remove the foreign keys all together? Specially in a "security related" package like passport, it sounds dangerous to do so for any new install. I strongly suggest to reconsider this
20e9b66
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The migrations shouldn't be reordered, it should've been a new migration instead.
As an example, you don't update a migration that has previously run on production, you add a new one, same should've happened here as well.
But either way, it's a bad move by removing and not doing it properly, seems lazy work.