Skip to content
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

[BUG] Allow dossier.yml to override database name #71

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

[BUG] Allow dossier.yml to override database name #71

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

sukima
Copy link

@sukima sukima commented Oct 17, 2017

As it stands the DATABASE_URL will override anything in dossier.yml. Some configurations need those values especially in the database name.

For example where the DATABASE_URL might look like this:

postgres://postgres@postgres:5432/

With a dossier.yml:

development:
  database: my_database_dev

Would have caused Dossier to break complaining that Database "/" does not exist

Further still with a DATABASE_URL that has the trailing slash removed dossier will assume the database name is "" (empty string)

This is especially problematic when the database name changes based on the RAILS_ENV.

As it stands the DATABASE_URL will override anything in dossier.yml.
Some configurations need those values especially in the database name.

For example where the DATABASE_URL might look like this:

    postgres://postgres@postgres:5432/

With a dossier.yml:

    development:
      database: my_database_dev

Would have caused Dossier to break complaining that **Database "/" does
not exist**

Further still with a DATABASE_URL that has the trailing slash removed
dossier will assume the database name is "" (empty string)

This is especially problematic when the database name changes based on
the RAILS_ENV.
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Oct 17, 2017

Coverage Status

Coverage decreased (-38.1%) to 61.875% when pulling 540c556 on C-S-D:dbnamefix into 81564d5 on tma1:master.

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Oct 17, 2017

Coverage Status

Coverage decreased (-38.1%) to 61.875% when pulling f767d8b on C-S-D:dbnamefix into 81564d5 on tma1:master.

@sukima
Copy link
Author

sukima commented Oct 17, 2017

The method is executed as part of the specs already in place. How could that one method equate to 38% of the code?! Something is very wrong with coveralls!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants