Declarative schema: Constraint with type="index" breaks setup process on subsequent upgrades

[k4emic]

Preconditions (*)

1. Magento 2.3

Steps to reproduce (*)

1. Use <constraint xsi:type="index"... in db_schema.xml
2. Run setup:upgrade twice

Sample db_schema.xml file

<?xml version="1.0"?>

<schema xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
        xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="urn:magento:framework:Setup/Declaration/Schema/etc/schema.xsd">

    <table name="inventory_source_item">
        <column xsi:type="timestamp" name="updated_at" on_update="true" nullable="false" default="CURRENT_TIMESTAMP"
                comment="Update Time"/>
        <constraint xsi:type="index" referenceId="INVENTORY_SOURCE_ITEM_UPDATED_AT">
            <column name="updated_at"/>
        </constraint>
    </table>
</schema>

Expected result (*)

1. Setup process completes with no changes detected

Actual result (*)

1. Command fails with message PDOException: SQLSTATE[42000]: Syntax error or access violation: 1061 Duplicate key name 'INVENTORY_SOURCE_ITEM_UPDATED_AT'

[magento-engcom-team]

Hi @k4emic. Thank you for your report.
To help us process this issue please make sure that you provided the following information:

• Summary of the issue
• Information on your environment
• Steps to reproduce
• Expected and actual results

Please make sure that the issue is reproducible on the vanilla Magento instance following Steps to reproduce. To deploy vanilla Magento instance on our environment, please, add a comment to the issue:

@magento-engcom-team give me 2.3-develop instance - upcoming 2.3.x release

For more details, please, review the Magento Contributor Assistant documentation.

@k4emic do you confirm that you was able to reproduce the issue on vanilla Magento instance following steps to reproduce?

• yes
• no

[magento-engcom-team]

Hi @engcom-backlog-nazar. Thank you for working on this issue.
In order to make sure that issue has enough information and ready for development, please read and check the following instruction: 👇

• 1. Verify that issue has all the required information. (Preconditions, Steps to reproduce, Expected result, Actual result).

  Details

  If the issue has a valid description, the label Issue: Format is valid will be added to the issue automatically. Please, edit issue description if needed, until label Issue: Format is valid appears.

• 2. Verify that issue has a meaningful description and provides enough information to reproduce the issue. If the report is valid, add Issue: Clear Description label to the issue by yourself.

• 3. Add Component: XXXXX label(s) to the ticket, indicating the components it may be related to.

• 4. Verify that the issue is reproducible on 2.3-develop branch

  Details

  - Add the comment @magento-engcom-team give me 2.3-develop instance to deploy test instance on Magento infrastructure.
  - If the issue is reproducible on 2.3-develop branch, please, add the label Reproduced on 2.3.x.
  - If the issue is not reproducible, add your comment that issue is not reproducible and close the issue and stop verification process here!

• 5. Verify that the issue is reproducible on 2.2-develop branch.

  Details

  - Add the comment @magento-engcom-team give me 2.2-develop instance to deploy test instance on Magento infrastructure.
  - If the issue is reproducible on 2.2-develop branch, please add the label Reproduced on 2.2.x

• Next steps are available in case you are a member of Community Maintainers.

• 6. Add label Issue: Confirmed once verification is complete.

• 7. Make sure that automatic system confirms that report has been added to the backlog.

[k4emic]

Some speculation on why this happens:

The \Magento\Framework\Setup\Declaration\Schema\Diff\TableDiff::calculateDiff treats indexes and constraints very differently when the diff is calculated. The example column will be added correctly at first, but subsequent runs of setup:upgrade will identify it (correctly) as an index instead of a constraint, which leads Magento to believe the index should be created.

Changing the XML file to use <index ..> (and dropping the existing index) solves this issue.
I think this is mainly a documentation problem, since defining an index through the use of <constraint> is not really valid for two reasons:

1. It creates two (very similar) ways of doing the same thing
2. The less intuitive way doesn't work

I would propose dropping/deprecating support for <constraint type="index" in the XSD, while we are still in the early stages of declarative schema.
While this is in breach with the semantic versioning concept, the feature is already broken and likely misplaced.

[k4emic]

Doing a little more research, it seems like the <constraint> element is too loosely defined in what it should allow.

Something like <constraint xsi:type="table" name="my_table" /> and <constraint /> is totally valid according to the XSD.

<xs:complexType name="table">
        <xs:annotation>
            <xs:documentation>
                Table definition. Here we can found column, constraints and indexes
            </xs:documentation>
        </xs:annotation>
        <xs:choice minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
            <xs:element name="column" type="abstractColumnType"/>
            <xs:element name="constraint" />
            <xs:element name="index" type="index" />
        </xs:choice>

<constraint> is the only type with no type attribute of the three.
Something like the following could help developers choosing the right element type for their needs:

# vendor/magento/framework/Setup/Declaration/Schema/etc/constraints/constraint.xsd
<xs:complexType name="constraintType">
        <xs:attribute name="type">
            <xs:simpleType>
                <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
                    <xs:enumeration value="foreign" />
                    <xs:enumeration value="unique" />
                </xs:restriction>
            </xs:simpleType>
        </xs:attribute>
    </xs:complexType>

[magento-engcom-team]

✅ Confirmed by @engcom-backlog-nazar
Thank you for verifying the issue. Based on the provided information internal tickets MAGETWO-98318 were created

Issue Available: @engcom-backlog-nazar, You will be automatically unassigned. Contributors/Maintainers can claim this issue to continue. To reclaim and continue work, reassign the ticket to yourself.

[stale]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed after 14 days if no further activity occurs. Is this issue still relevant? If so, what is blocking it? Is there anything you can do to help move it forward? Thank you for your contributions!

[kanevbg]

up

[stale]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed after 14 days if no further activity occurs. Is this issue still relevant? If so, what is blocking it? Is there anything you can do to help move it forward? Thank you for your contributions!

[k4emic]

Bump

[PascalBrouwers]

You should not make issues stale that are internal tickets!

[kanevbg]

Come on.