Opened 10 years ago
Closed 4 years ago
#25012 closed Bug (fixed)
Migrations don't make foreign key type changes
Reported by: | Hedde van der Heide | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Component: | Migrations | Version: | dev |
Severity: | Normal | Keywords: | migrations |
Cc: | Tyson Clugg, Samuel Bishop | Triage Stage: | Accepted |
Has patch: | no | Needs documentation: | no |
Needs tests: | no | Patch needs improvement: | no |
Easy pickings: | no | UI/UX: | no |
Description (last modified by )
Example:
class Foo(models.Model): id = models.AutoField() # Now change this to models.CharField(primary_key=True, max_length=...) and migrate, the migration doesn't complain class Bar(object): foo = models.ForeignKey(Foo) # but Postgres will still say Bar.foo is an Integer value.
DataError at /myapp/bar/add/ invalid input syntax for integer: "TEST" LINE 1: ...d") VALUES (NULL, 'TEST', ...
Attachments (1)
Change History (18)
comment:1 by , 10 years ago
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|
comment:2 by , 10 years ago
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|
comment:3 by , 10 years ago
Component: | Uncategorized → Migrations |
---|---|
Triage Stage: | Unreviewed → Accepted |
Type: | Uncategorized → Bug |
comment:4 by , 9 years ago
Cc: | added |
---|
comment:6 by , 9 years ago
Keywords: | postgres migrations removed |
---|---|
Version: | 1.8 → master |
#24954 was a duplicate for the ManyToManyField
case.
comment:8 by , 8 years ago
I was able to neatly fix this with a raw SQL migration that changed the intermediary table column type.
I had the following schema in an application called documents
:
class Tag(models.Model): # converted this `name` field to primary_key # previously had the default `id` AutoField as primary_key field # PrimaryKeyField migration in for ManyToManyField is risky! name = models.CharField(max_length=32, primary_key=True) class Document(models.Model): tags = models.ManyToManyField(Tag, blank=True)
After changing the schema and running unit tests I discovered that I indeed to got a DatabaseError:
django.db.utils.DataError: invalid input syntax for integer: "Miss Amanda Goodwin" LINE 1: ..."tag_id") WHERE "documents_document_tags"."tag_id" = 'Miss Aman...
Migrating with the following helped:
ALTER TABLE documents_document_tags ALTER COLUMN tag_id TYPE varchar(32);
This of course had to be added as a migration file for sane functionality in tests and migration chain:
# -*- coding: utf-8 -*- # Migrations file example for fixing broken ManyToManyField migration from INTEGER to VARCHAR # Generated by Django 1.10.3 on 1970-01-01 00:00 from __future__ import unicode_literals from django.db import migrations class Migration(migrations.Migration): dependencies = [ ('documents', '0042_auto_19700101-0000'), ] operations = [ migrations.RunSQL('ALTER TABLE documents_document_tags ALTER tag_id TYPE varchar(32);'), ]
comment:9 by , 6 years ago
If this is the same as #29787, then 45ded053b1f4320284aa5dac63052f6d1baefea9 and b8a2f3c2d66aa15af4be745a576609b958a853c0 might be useful commits to look at.
comment:10 by , 5 years ago
Cc: | added |
---|---|
Keywords: | migrations added |
comment:11 by , 4 years ago
I ran in to this today (Django 3.1.4). The workaround was to
UPDATE myapp.mytable set my_fk_column = NULL;
and re-run the migration.
comment:12 by , 4 years ago
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|---|
Summary: | Migration doesn't seem to detect foreignKey type changes → Migrations don't make foreign key type changes |
comment:13 by , 4 years ago
Ran into this migrating primary keys to BigAutoField
. Was expecting it to generate explicit migrations for changes to foreign keys to those ids, but it doesn't. Running sqlmigrate
also didn't show any ALTER
operations to foreign keys. However running the migration for the BigAutoField
change, resulted in an ALTER
on one foreign key in a different app, but not another in the same app.
comment:14 by , 4 years ago
Having experimented a bit more - it seems changing a primary key to BigAutoField
does change any foreign keys to BIGINT
when the migration is applied - except in implicit M2M through models. Those remain as INT
and have to be fixed manually.
comment:15 by , 4 years ago
Owner: | changed from | to
---|---|
Status: | new → assigned |
I had a look at the field alteration logic and it seems to come from the fact m2m relationships are excluded from this block
I've assigned it to myself as it's likely something we want to get fix before the final 3.2 release which introduces warnings about AutoField
.
comment:16 by , 4 years ago
Owner: | removed |
---|---|
Status: | assigned → new |
I managed to reproduce but I think the issue is specific to sqlmigrate
when dealing with cross-app relationships and due to how related models are lazily built. When using the migrate
command everything seems to work fine.
The alter_field
method relies on _related_non_m2m_objects
to determine which models points back at the field being altered but since sqlmigrate
only loads the minimal plan it might not render some back referencing models and thus _related_non_m2m_objects
won't return them. Unless someone can reproduce the same issue by solely using migrate
I think this issue should be closed as fixed since we already tests for it and a new one could be opened for sqlmigrate
misbehaviour.
I attached a test project I used to reproduce the sqlmigrate
issue and confirm migrate
works fine. Notice that sqlmigrate app_one 0002
doesn't mention app_two_baz_foos
at all unless app_one.0002_auto_20210105_2317
is changed to depend on app_two.0001_initial
which forces the rendering of the app_two.Baz.Baz_Foo
model. I suspect the issue can also be reproduced using a ForeignKey
across apps.
comment:17 by , 4 years ago
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
I agree with Simon. I've confirmed that this's already fixed with a separate sample project. Also, I cannot reproduce an issue with sqlmigrate
.
Confirmed on master.