Maybe it can't be done with Octopus, and so we just set the object permissions normally, do our pull requests and all that, but rather than Octopus deploy the changes automatically, after you approve the pull request you then apply the object changes.We've started playing with RedGate's SQL Source Control, but I think that whether we use this, or GitKraken, or any other source control interface tool, the problem won't change.Thus, I'm not sure if you could have that one user only able to make changes to objects if a certain person approved the appropriate pull request. By using TeamCity and Octopus (in my understanding), no individual developer would have permission to change things in Live, but only the Octopus user has that permission.Even if I use some sort of branch-based permission, I'm not sure how we could enforce branch naming conventions when a developer wants to alter one of these "protected" objects.Bitbucket can allow default reviewers for certain branches, but you can't add a group, only individuals.
We use Atlassian Bitbucket for hosting the repos.Ĭan this object-level restriction work with this Git workflow? However, to match our company's existing IT workflow, we were looking at using TeamCity and Octopus to automatically deploy changes to the database when the Git master branch is changes (which will occur via an approved pull request). One problem we have is that certain objects (in this case, stored procedures) are more important, and we only want them to be altered by certain users (well, actually, certain AD groups which will have one or two users in them). We are starting to integrate our SQL Server workflow with Git, by which I mean generating scripts for all objects and storing them in a Git repository so you can pull, edit, commit, push and apply, rather than just modify objects directly.
0 kommentar(er)
