always get update messages to update the module, but get then this error message:
The following updates returned messages
entity_translation module
Update #7006
Failed: DatabaseSchemaObjectExistsException: Das Feld entity_translation.revision_id konnte nicht hinzugefügt werden: Das Feld existiert bereits. in DatabaseSchema_mysql->addField() (Zeile 328 + includes/database/mysql/schema.inc).
| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| #10 | update_from_before-2425825-10.patch | 1.12 KB | jamesrward |
Comments
Comment #1
caw67 commentedalways in the dev version.
entity_translation module
7006 - Add revision schema for entity translation metadata.
7007 - Disable revision support on existing installations.
Comment #2
plachPlease, see https://www.drupal.org/project/entity_translation#bugfixing
(and I don't understand german, btw :)
Comment #3
bdupls commentedI too get an error message, the site seems to work fine, no errors, but when I run update.php I get this error.
The following updates returned messages
entity_translation module
Update #7006
Failed: DatabaseSchemaObjectExistsException: Cannot add field entity_translation.revision_id: field already exists. in DatabaseSchema_mysql->addField() (line 328 of /home/xxx/public_html/includes/database/mysql/schema.inc).
Comment #4
dblais commentedSame problem, same message. I think the update did not finish correctly. Field was created but the update is not marked as complete...
Comment #5
giorgoskupdated with drush
drush up entity_translation and ended up with this
because the instructions to migrate to the new beta4 from the release notes https://www.drupal.org/node/2412615 are not that helpful (i.e. second paragraph about manual migration)
I had to run both from phpmyadmin
because I was getting more errors after droping revision_id
after that the updb run smoothly and site did not seem to have any problem after the update
please use at your own risk (and do backup of the site first)
Comment #6
plachOk, so this seems a documentation issue. Any suggestion on how to make release notes more clear about what to do?
The intended process should be:
Comment #7
giorgosk@plach
I never intended to make revision available (I did not know it existed)
could I have enabled it on a version before beta4 ?
because surely I only tried to do an update from this version
-----------------
; Information added by Drupal.org packaging script on 2014-09-30
version = "7.x-1.0-beta3+14-dev"
core = "7.x"
project = "entity_translation"
datestamp = "1412097246"
---------------
why did it create this problem problem since 2. applied to my case ?
is it surely a documentation problem ?
Comment #8
plachWell, updates are supported only between beta versions, if you installed a -dev and then updated to beta4 it's actually possible that the update process was somehow broken. To be sure ideally you should grab a backup of your site with beta3 and update directly to beta4. I realize this may be difficult but this would ensure the test is fair.
Comment #9
jurgenhaasI think the format of the update script could be easily improved so that it works in any case - although I don't understand how a scenario could happen where a field or table already exists and should be generated by an update script again.
However, here is how I always do that in my modules:
This is much shorter, works in all cases and avoids redundant code.
Comment #10
jamesrward commentedHere's a patch with the suggestions from #9. Just ran into this issue trying to upgrade an existing site to beta4 via wetkit 1.10. As described above updatedb fails with:
Comment #11
denix commentedI confirm the patch works well.
Comment #12
denix commentedComment #13
vegardjo commentedWorks just fine here as well
Comment #15
plachThe only problem with that suggestion is it's not 100% reliable, as it produces an unpredictable update flow, I strongly recommend not to follow it.
I just committed #10 that looks more or less correct as a stop-gap fix, although it would be better to figure out why the schema was already there before running the update function. Maybe the update was not completing successfully and it was being run twice? I guess we'll never know.