compare 5.2 problems

• 
  Hi there,
  can you give some more information please. I donot think that I understand correctly.
  What I did to try to recreate your problem was
  Set up function1 on database1 & database2
  Modified the base CLR on databases2
  then renamed function1 on database2 to function2
  then tried SQL Compare...
  All seemed fine!
  Please explain further
  Thanks
  David

  david connell July 17, 2006 09:45

  - 0 +
• 
  1. in database1 drop function1 and create function2
  2. compare: in database2 function1 must be droped and function2 must be created, but in script contains
  
  drop function1
  create fuction1
  
  function1 and function2 - assembly function (table-valued)
  part of script:
  
  
  
  PRINT N'Creating [dbo].[wd_getmoskitlist_order]'
  GO
  
  CREATE FUNCTION [dbo].[wd_moskitlist_order](@idorder int)
  RETURNS @userparametrs TABLE
  
  
  in creating "get" why-that is absent, but in print "wd_GETmoskitlist_order"

  chuprin July 18, 2006 02:52

  - 0 +
• 
  Hi there,
  I could not reproduce your problem, plus I was confused if this problem was regarding a CLR function or SQL style functions..
  SQL Function
  If you rename your functions eg using sp_Rename then you get the following problem. (Which looks like your problem)

  GO
  PRINT N'Creating [dbo].[wd_getmostkitlist_order1]'
  GO
  CREATE FUNCTION wd_getmostkitlist_order 
  (	
  	@p1 int
  	
  )
  RETURNS TABLE 
  AS
  RETURN 
  (
  	
  	SELECT id=0
  )
  

  
  CLR Function
  However if I use CLR assemblies and rename (or drop and recreate) then everything works out correctly eg

  PRINT N'Creating [dbo].[dbo.Freddy]'
  GO
  CREATE FUNCTION [dbo].[dbo.Freddy] (@input [int])
  RETURNS TABLE (
  [Divisor] [int] NULL)
  WITH EXECUTE AS CALLER
  EXTERNAL NAME [SqlServerProject1].[UserDefinedFunctions].[Divisor]
  GO
  

  
  The reason for different results is because the SQL style function definition is stored in sys.syscomments, which is not updated via the sp_rename.
  Deleting and recreating the items should mean that all is fine.
  Please explain more.
  Regards
  David

  david connell July 18, 2006 13:16

  - 0 +
• 
  I consider that me necessary to send you two my databases.
  data in base not will - an archive will be small.
  
  where and to whom send?
  this will vastly accelerate searching for of the mistake.

  chuprin July 19, 2006 05:50

  - 0 +
• 
  Hi there,
  You could send it to me....
  david.connell@red-gate.com
  Regards
  David

  david connell July 19, 2006 06:24

  - 0 +
• 
  Hi there,
  thanks for your databases. I have sent a full explanation with snippits from your database to your private message box.
  Regards
  David

  david connell July 19, 2006 12:00

  - 0 +
• 
  thank, david!
  
  the problem with names function is locked.
  
  but that with relationship between assembly?

  chuprin July 20, 2006 05:15

  - 0 +
• 
  recreate assemblies with provision for dependencies...

  chuprin July 20, 2006 05:16

  - 0 +
• 
  Hi Chuprin,
  When I only selected your the Function wd_getmoskitlist_order, SQL Compare works out that the following objects are dependant
  

  customer diraction wd_getbytecount wd_getcolorin wd_getcolorout wd_getct wd_getfs wd_getglasslist wd_getmodelparam wd_getmodelsqr wd_getmoskitlist dbo.wd_getmoskitlist dbo.wd_getmoskitlist dbo.wd_getmoskitlist wd_getprofiles wd_getps wd_getquglass wd_getqumoskit wd_getqustv wd_getramasqr AtWDmodel

  As you can see the only assembly that is being updated is AtWDmodel
  The is dragged in because this function uses wd_getmoskitlist, which is in turn use AtWDmodel assembly. Ie as you say there is no relationship between these assemblies. I presume that you are finding the other assemblies being included because you are including something that drags them in ?
  If you want a more visual representation of the relationships between things try out SQL Depenedency Viewer. I find it invaluable.
  Hope that helps
  David

  david connell July 20, 2006 06:17

  - 0 +
• 
  :-)
  problem1 - dependencies between all assembly of the base!
  
  After compare going to the script: -> line numbers 85-89
  
  dropping assemblies without dependencies!
  correct sequence:
  
  DROP ASSEMBLY [AtWinManufact]
  GO
  DROP ASSEMBLY [AtWDmodel]
  GO
  DROP ASSEMBLY [Atechnology.winDraw.Model]
  GO

  chuprin July 20, 2006 06:39

  - 0 +
• 
  do once again comparison of these bases,
  with that OPTIONS of the comparison, about which I wrote.
  
  call attention - in violin invalid sequence removing of the assemblies!

  chuprin July 20, 2006 06:42

  - 0 +
• 
  Hi Chuprin,
  Could you send me your project file please. I was not able to get the following lines:

  dropping assemblies without dependencies! 
  correct sequence: 
  
  DROP ASSEMBLY [AtWinManufact] 
  GO 
  DROP ASSEMBLY [AtWDmodel] 
  GO 
  DROP ASSEMBLY [Atechnology.winDraw.Model] 
  GO
  

  I did have the options that you specified. However as yet I could not reproduce your specific issue....
  Best regards
  David

  david connell July 20, 2006 06:44

  - 0 +
• 
  assembly Atechnology.winDraw.Model must dropped on last step!

  chuprin July 20, 2006 06:44

  - 0 +
• 
  Project configuration->
  Options->
  More Options...->
  Behavior->
  
  Do not use transactions in sync... - YES
  Do not use ALTER ASSEBLY to change CLR types - YES

  chuprin July 20, 2006 06:47

  - 0 +
• 
  at 83 line in script:
  
  PRINT N'Dropping CLR assemblies'
  GO
  DROP ASSEMBLY [Atechnology.winDraw.Model]
  GO
  DROP ASSEMBLY [AtWinManufact]
  GO
  DROP ASSEMBLY [AtWDmodel]
  GO
  
  go to Management Studio->database->... and see to dependencies
  of AtWinManufact or AtWDmodel.
  they have a dependency from Atechnology.winDraw.Model

  chuprin July 20, 2006 06:51

  - 0 +
• 
  Hi Chuprin,
  Arrr I think I am beginning to understand. Sorry for being so slow...
  So does AtWDModel & AtWinManufact have a .NET reference to Atechnology.winDraw.Model? and then I presume that you have the necessary using statements in the necessary .cs files?
  Regards
  David

  david connell July 20, 2006 07:14

  - 0 +
• 
  necessary to dropping assemblies consecutively - according to dependencies between them.
  
  in compare5.2 assemblies dropping without regard dependencies between them.
  
  necessary (step-by-step):
  1. drop all functions and procedures, founded on assembly
  2. drop all assemblies with provision for dependencies
  3. create all assemblies with provision for dependencies
  4. create all functions, which are founded on assembly

  chuprin July 20, 2006 07:29

  - 0 +
• 
  "So does AtWDModel & AtWinManufact have a .NET reference to Atechnology.winDraw.Model?"
  
  YES!

  chuprin July 20, 2006 07:31

  - 0 +
• 
  Hi Chuprin,
  Thanks for the explaining what was going on. Now I understand, we will investigate it and I will get back to you in the near future.
  Regards
  David

  david connell July 20, 2006 13:44

  - 0 +

Add comment

Please sign in to leave a comment.