| Author |
Message |
alecl
Joined: 23 Jul 2007 Posts: 16
|
Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:19 pm Post subject: Scripts for User Defined Type Changes |
|
|
| I made a change to a user defined type that I'm using as a TVP on some stored procedures. Sql Compare is finding the difference in the UDT and trying to do a DROP/CREATE, but it's failing because those Stored Procedures reference it. In this case I feel it should be detecting those SP's need to be dropped/recreated without me checking "Synchronize all dependencies" which I never turn on because I've seen it do unexpected things that I didn't want. If you change something in the PK it's smart enough to deal with the chain of indexes/constraints without that checkbox and this seems like the same situation |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Chris Auckland
Joined: 24 Oct 2006 Posts: 710 Location: Red Gate Software Ltd.
|
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for your post.
Indexes/constraints aren't considered objects in their own right in SQL Compare, and are treated as part of the table object. This is probably why their dependencies are taken into account without using the 'include dependencies' option.
When you don't use the 'include dependencies' option, then only the objects selected for synchronization will be considered and any other unselected objects will not be brought back into the project.
Does it pick up the dependency to the stored procedure if you 'include dependencies'? _________________ Chris |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
alecl
Joined: 23 Jul 2007 Posts: 16
|
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
"Does it pick up the dependency to the stored procedure if you 'include dependencies'?"
Yes, but I've found that can sometimes add unexpected and dangerous changes to a deploy script so I never include that. I wish I had a good example of why I'm afraid to do that. I came to that conclusion literally years ago and I don't recall what led me to it.
It seems like in a situation where the change script will outright fail and with something as innocuous as just recreating the SP's that this situation should be handled without having to check that checkbox for include dependencies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Chris Auckland
Joined: 24 Oct 2006 Posts: 710 Location: Red Gate Software Ltd.
|
Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry for the delay.
The reason for having the option to not include dependencies is basically so users can choose that unselected objects are not brought back into the project under any circumstances.
If you need the tool to help bring any connected objects back into the project, then that's when the 'include dependencies' option should be used. If it's performing dangerous or undesirable actions, then that's the issue we need to look into.
A lot had changed in the tools dependency engine in the last few years, so you might find it reliable now. _________________ Chris |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group