Change config values on a specific time - configuration

I just got a mail saying that I have to change a config value at 2009-09-01 (new taxes). Our normal approach for this would be to to awake at 2009-08-31 at 23:59 and then just change the value manually. Which not is a big problem since this don't happens to often. But it makes me wonder how other people handle issues like this.
So! How do you handle date specific config changes?
(We are working in asp.net but I don't think this has to be language specific)
Br
Carl Bergquist

I'd normally store this kind of data in a database table like this
Key, Value, EffectiveFrom, EffectiveTo
-----------------------------------------
VAT, 15.0, 20081201, 20091231
VAT, 17.5, 20100101, NULL
I'd then use the EffectiveFrom and EffectiveTo dates to chose the value that is effective at the given time. If the rate is open ended then the effecive to could either by NULL or 99991231.
This also allows you to go back without having to change the config. E.g. if someone asks you to recalculate the tax for the previous month before the rate change.

In linux, there is a command "at" for batch execution.
See "man at" for details.

To be honest, waking up near the time and changing it seems to be the simplest and cheapest approach. All of the technical solutions are fine, but it depends where you work.
In our environment it would be cheaper and simpler to get someone to wake up and make the change than to redevelop the functionality of a piece of software that already works. It certainly involves less testing, development overhead and costs which means we would tend to solve the problem as you do, manually.

That depends totally on the situation and the technology.
pjp's idea is good, if you get your config from a database, or as metadata to define the valid time for whole config sets/files.
Another might be: just prepare a new configfile with the new entries and swap them at midnight (probably with a restart of the service/program) whatever.
Swapping them would be possible with at (as given bei Neeraj) ...
If timing is a problem you should handle the change, or at least the timing of the change on the running server (to avoid time out of synch problems).

We got same kind of problem some time before and handled using the following approach.
this is suitable if you are well known to the source that orginates the configuration changes..
In our case, the source exposed a webservice (actualy a third party) which will return a modified config details. And there is a windows service running on our server which keeps on polling the webservice and will update the configuration file if there is any change.
this works perfectly in our case..
You can make use of this approach by changing the polling webservice part to your source of config change (say reading changes from some disk path). But am not sure how this is possible reading config changes from email.

Why not just make a shell script to swap out the files. run it in cron and switch the files out a minute before and send an alert text if NOT successful and an email if successful.
This is an example on a Linux box but I think you get the point and can do this on a Windows box.
Script:
cp /path/to/old/config /path/to/backup/dir/config.timestamp
cp /path/to/new/config
if(/path/to/new/config exsits) {
sendSuccessEmail();
} else {
sendPanicTextAlert();
}
cron:
59 23 31 8 * /path/to/script.sh
you could test this as well before hand just point to some dummy directories and file

I've seen the hybrid approach. Instead of actually changing the data model to include EffectiveDate/EndDate or manually changing the values yourself, schedule a script to change the values automatically. Also, be sure to have a solid test plan that will validate all changes.
However, this type of manual change can have a dramatic impact on reporting. If previous transactions join directly to the tables being changed, numbers in historical reports could change in a very bad way. There really is no "right" answer.

If I'm not able to do something like pjp's solution, I'd use either a scheduled task or a server job to update it automatically at the right time.
But...I'd probably still be awake checking it had worked.

Look the best solution would be to parameterise your config file and add things like when a certain entry should be used from. This would negate the need for any copying or swapping of files and your application would simply deal with it. (That goes for a config file approach or a database)
If you cannot change the current systems and you have to go with swapping the config files, then you also have two options:
Use a scheduled task to kick off a batch job or even a VBScript or PowerShell script (which ever you feel comfortable with) Make sure you set up the correct credentials to be able to do this at the middle of the night and you could also add some checking and mitigation into this approach.
Write a windows Service that does this for you. Here you have all the flexibility you need. Code it to do whatever it needs to do, do all the checks you need to (so that you can keep sleeping rather than making sure it actually worked) etc, etc. You service would then even take care of the scheduling aspect and all will be good. Here you could use xml DOM object and xPath and not replace the file, but simply update the specific entries as required.
Remember that any change to the config file would cause your site to restart, so make sure you take care of all the other housekeeping stuff that this could cause. (Although this would be exactly the same if you where sitting there in the middle of the night copying file around)

Related

The point of Stryket.Net since.ignore-changes-in config

Stryker-net has an option since.ignore-changes-in and I'm trying to understand in which use case it may be useful to ignore non C# files 1.
The doc gives that example of value ['/*Assets.json','/favicon.ico'], but if my last commit changes only Assets.json and if I run stryker with "since": {"target": "<sha1 of my previous commit>"}, then no mutation will be found on this change, with or without this ignore-changes-in option, right?
What am I missing?
1: Sure, if I don't find it useful I could just avoid using it on my personal projects. However I'm responsible for providing stryker in CI for several teams in my company and I'm hence interested in making sure I have a good understanding of the consequences of using (or not) this.
I can think of two cases.
First, it might bring some performance gain (just by reducing the amount of files Stryker will get to), e.g. when your change updates 100 XML localizations of some string.
Second, you might have real code you don't want to run Stryker against. E.g. you have some Obsolete folder with a bunch of projects you don't care about but which automatically updates with some renaming and so on. This might be interchangeable with the mutate option, unless you want to have different filters for "normal" and "diff" Stryker executions.

Fix or Start Over (MS Access Database)?

I have sort of agreed to help out a small local community non-profit org with a database that was created for them many years ago. The original developer, along with his original uncompiled files are long gone, the current file has many problems, but since it is a .mde file I can't pull it apart to see how it all works. I do have access to the Tables and I can see what the Reports look like (just not how and where they get the data).
My feeling is that it might just be easier (and quicker!) to create a new version using what I can see in the original database as the basis for the new one. This way whatever problems they are experiencing will be resolved and all of the legacy stuff they no longer need/use will be removed. Plus, they will have a version that can be modified in the future even if I'm not around.
If you've had to deal with a similar situation how did you go about deciding which direction to head in? In other words, what are the typical considerations/traps I need to know about before taking on this adventure (other than it taking way more time and effort than I think it will)?
Thanks!
I'd first determine if big or minor changes are needed now or to be expected in the near future. If not, I'd try to find a way to keep the system alive.
On the other hand, you already provided some good arguments for setting up a new system that I agree with. I would add to that that is much more satisfying to do this. Almost always you wish you started from greenfield if you try to alter an old legacy system.
Point to considder, is that you might need to train the existing users to work with the new system.
Good luck!

Make an item display only for certain period of time on the webpage

Hi guys I am constructing a task distribution management system for my team in which I want to add a functionality that:
When I create a task, I will have an option to choose "how long is this task valid for being taken". For example, when creating the task I put "2 hours" in the
<input id="valid-for">
, then this task will only be displayed on the dashboard for 2 hours from the time it was created and then after 2 hours -> "display: none".
I've searched the web for the mechanism of achieving this feature but I didn't get a satisfied answer probably because I don't know the right terminology to google. I tried to use AJAX and use TIME_STAMP type attribute in MySQL but didn't know how to proceed. Could anybody tell me how to achieve this feature by the use of MySQL, jQuery or any other technics that could fulfill this feature? No code necessary I just need some explanation.
Thanks guys!
Without knowing any more details, here is how I would consider writing the code:
In the database, have a start time and a use-by time.
In your browser page, you can run a script periodically, say every minute (this is called polling). In this case, you can use Ajax to call back to the server for updates.
At the server end, check for new tasks as well as expired tasks. Then send the results back to the Ajax caller.
Back at the browser, update the dashboard accordingly.
I would be inclined to remove the task on the browser rather than simply hide it.

What should I put in header comments at the top of source files?

I've got lots of source code files written in various languages, but none of them have a standard comment at the top (sometimes even across the same project). Some of them don't have any header comment at all :-)
I've been thinking about creating a standard template that I can use at the top of my source files, and was wondering what fields I should include.
I know I want to include my name and a short description of what the file contains/does. Should I also include the date created? The date last modified? The programmer who last modified the file? What other fields have you found to be useful?
Any tips and comments welcome.
Thanks,
Cameron
This seems to be a dying practice.
Some people here on StackOverflow are against code comments altogether (reasoning that code should be written to be self explanatory) While I wouldn't go that far, some of the points of the anti-comment crowd make sense, such as the fact that comments tend to be out of date.
Header blocks of comments suffer from these symptoms even more so. Every organization I've been with that has had these header blocks, they are out of date. They have a author name of some guy who doesnt even work there any more, a description that does not match the code at all (assuming it ever did) and a last modified date, that once compared with version control history, seems to have missed its last dozen updates.
In my personal opinion, keep comments close to the code. If you want to know purpose of, and/or history of, a code file, use your version control system.
Date created, date modified and author who last changed the file should be stored in your source control software.
I usually put:
The main purpose of the file and things within the file.
The project/module the file belongs to.
The license associated with the file (and a LICENSE file in the project root).
Who is responsible for the file (either the team, person, or both)
Back in 2002, when I was straight out of college and jobs were few and far between after the dot-com bust, I joined a service company which used to create software customized for their clients in Java. I had to sit in the office of a client (which was a ramshackle room in an electric sub-station rigged with an AC to keep the servers running), sharing chairs/PCs with other guys in the team. The other engineers (if I can call them engineers ;) in the group used to make changes ad-hoc to the source code, compile the files and put them into production.
No way to figure out who made what change.
No way to figure out why any change was made.
No way to go to previous version of code, unless the engineer "remembered" what he modified.
Backup: Copy over files from the production server, which were replaced with new files.
Location of backup: Home directory of engineer copying over files to production server.
Reports of production servers going down due to botched attempts of copying over files to the server (missed a file to be copied over, backups getting lost or wrong files being copied over or not all files being copied over) were met with shrugs (oh no, is it down? let's see what happened; hey who changed what recently...? ummm...).
During those days, after spending several frustrating days trying to figure out the whos and whys behind the code, I had devised a system for comments in a list in the header of the source file which detailed the following:
Date of change made
Who made the change
Why was the change made
Two months later when the list threatened to challenge the size of the source code in the file, the manager had the bright idea of getting a source version control system.
I have never needed to put any comments in headers of source files (except for copyright notices) in any company I worked since. In my current company, everything else is mostly self-evident by looking at the code, or going to the bug reporting system which is integrated with the source version control system.
What fields do you need? If you have to ask whether to put some info there, you don't really need that info. Unless you are forced, by some bureaucratic incompetence of your employer, I don't see why you should go looking for more info than you already feel should be there.\
In most organizations, all source files have to begin with a legal blurb. If you're really lucky, it's just a one-liner, but in most cases it's a really long block of legalese. As a result, few people ever read these. Our eye just travels to the first program element and then goes up to its documentation.
So if you want to write anything, write it in association with the topmost program element, not the file.
Any other bookkeeping information should generally be part of your version control, not maintained (poorly) in the file itself.
In addition to the comment above stating license, the project that it belongs to, etc I also tend to put the "weird" requirements at the top as well (such as "built with version X of library Y") so you, or the person who picks it up after you won't change something that the program relies on without realizing it (or, if they do, they will at least know what to change back)
A lot depends on whether you're using an auto-documentation generation tool or not.
While I agree with many of the comments, if you're using JavaDoc or some other documentation generating tool that depends on comments, you'll obviously need to include the things it wants to see.
You did not mention that you are using a version control system and your comment in Neil N's answer confirms this for your older code. While using version control is the best way to go I also have experienced many situations where the cost of doing so for older code would not be paid for by the project's sponsor. If you do not have a centralized change history for the project then the change history can be put in the modules. It is good that you are using a version control system for your new code.
Your company name
All rights reserved (c) year - or reference to appropriate license
Project or library this file is for
Module it belongs to
Description of what it contains
History
-------
01/08/2010 - Programmer - version
Initial creation.
01/09/2010 - Programmer - version
Change description.
01/10/2010 - Programmer - version
Change description.
Those useful fields that you mentioned are good ones. Who modified the file and when.
Your version control software should allow for the embedding of keywords within comments. For example, in CVS, the $Id$ will resolve to the file, date/time modified, and user that modified the file. It will automatically be kept up to date with each check-in.
Include the following information:
What this file is for. That's a very useful piece of knowledge and it's more important than anything else. You should tell the reader, why there is such a file, why did you group functions in a separate file/package/module and why they are used. Maybe briefly, one or two lines, but that should be there.
Legal stuff, if appplicant.
Leave the place for special commands of console editors, such as of Emacs.
Add special commands that your auto-documenting system requires.
Things things you shouldn not include are
Who created the file
When it was created
Who modified it the last time
When it was last modified
What was added by the latest modification
You can--and should--retrieve it via the version control system, where it's constantly and automatically kept up-to-date. Let alone that most of these points are just useless.
Who created the file
When it was created
Who modified it the last time
When it was last modified
What was added by the latest modification

What can I do to prevent write-write conflicts on a wiki-style website?

On a wiki-style website, what can I do to prevent or mitigate write-write conflicts while still allowing the site to run quickly and keeping the site easy to use?
The problem I foresee is this:
User A begins editing a file
User B begins editing the file
User A finishes editing the file
User B finishes editing the file, accidentally overwriting all of User A's edits
Here were some approaches I came up with:
Have some sort of check-out / check-in / locking system (although I don't know how to prevent people from keeping a file checked out "too long", and I don't want users to be frustrated by not being allowed to make an edit)
Have some sort of diff system that shows an other changes made when a user commits their changes and allows some sort of merge (but I'm worried this will hard to create and would make the site "too hard" to use)
Notify users of concurrent edits while they are making their changes (some sort of AJAX?)
Any other ways to go at this? Any examples of sites that implement this well?
Remember the version number (or ID) of the last change. Then read the entry before writing it and compare if this version is still the same.
In case of a conflict inform the user who was trying to write the entry which was changed in the meantime. Support him with a diff.
Most wikis do it this way. MediaWiki, Usemod, etc.
Three-way merging: The first thing to point out is that most concurrent edits, particularly on longer documents, are to different sections of the text. As a result, by noting which revision Users A and B acquired, we can do a three-way merge, as detailed by Bill Ritcher of Guiffy Software. A three-way merge can identify where the edits have been made from the original, and unless they clash it can silently merge both edits into a new article. Ideally, at this point carry out the merge and show User B the new document so that she can choose to further revise it.
Collision resolution:
This leaves you with the scenario when both editors have edited the same section. In this case, merge everything else and offer the text of the three versions to User B - that is, include the original - with either User A's version in the textbox or User B's. That choice depends on whether you think the default should be to accept the latest (the user just clicks Save to retain their version) or force the editor to edit twice to get their changes in (they have to re-apply their changes to editor A's version of the section).
Using three-way merging like this avoids lock-outs, which are very difficult to handle well on the web (how long do you let them have the lock?), and the aggravating 'you might want to look again' scenario, which only works well for forum-style responses. It also retains the post-respond style of the web.
If you want to Ajax it up a bit, dynamically 3-way merge User A's version into User B's version while they are editing it, and notify them. Now that would be impressive.
In Mediawiki, the server accepts the first change, and then when the second edit is saved a conflicts page comes up, and then the second person merges the two changes together. See Wikipedia: Help:Edit Conflicts
Using a locking mechanism will probably be the easiest to implement. Each article could have a lock field associated with it and a lock time. If the lock time exceeded some set value you'd consider the lock to be invalid and remove it when checking out the article for edit. You could also keep track of open locks and remove them on session close. You'd also need to implement some concurrency control in the database (autogenerated timestamps, perhaps) so that you could make sure that you are checking in an update to the version that you checked out, just in case two people were able to edit the article at the same time. Only the one with the correct version would be able successfully check in an edit.
You might also be able to find a difference engine that you could just use to construct differences, though displaying them in a wiki editor may be problematic -- actually displaying the differences is probably harder than constructing the diff. You'd rely on the versioning system to detect when you needed to reject an edit and perform a diff.
In Gmail, if we are writing a reply to a mail and someone else sends a reply while we are still typing it, a popup appears indicating that there is a new update and the update itself appears as another post without a page reload. This approach would suit your needs and if you can use Ajax to show the exact post with a link to diff of what was just updated while User B is still busy typing his entry that would be great.
As Ravi (and others) have said, you could use an AJAX approach and inform the user when another change is in progress. When an edit is submitted, just indicate the textual differences and let the second user work out how to merge the two versions.
However, I'd like to add on with something new you could try in addition to that: Open a chat dialog between the editors while they're doing their edits. You could use something like embedded Gabbly for that, for instance.
The best conflict resolution is direct dialog, I say.
Your problem (lost update) is solved best using Optimistic Concurrency Control.
One implementation is to add a version column in each editable entity of the system. On user edit you load the row and display the html form on the user. A hidden field gives the version, let's say 3. The update query needs to look something like:
update articles set ..., version=4 where id=14 and version=3;
If rows returned is 0 then someone has already updated article 14. All you need to do then is how to deal with the situation. Some common solutions:
last commit wins
first commit wins
merge conflicting updates
let the user decide
Instead of an incrementing version int/long you can use a timestamp but it's not suggested because:
retrieving the current time from the JVM isn't necessarily safe in a clustered environment, where nodes may not be time synchronized.
(quote from Java Persistence with Hibernate)
Some more info at the hibernate documentation.
At my office, we have a policy that all data tables contain 4 fields:
CreatedBy
CreatedDate
LastUpdateBy
LastUpdateDate
That way there is a nice audit trail on who has done what to the records, at least most recently.
But most importantly, it becomes easy enough to compare the LastUpdateDate of the current or edited record on the screen (requires you to store it on the page, in a cookie, whatever, with the value in the database. If the values don't match, you can decide what to do from there.