(nexus-repository-migrator) Fixes Nexus 3.71 Breaking Change Upgrade

[JPRuskin]

Description

We now have a new package, nexus-repository-migrator, that contains logic to migrate the Nexus Repository database from 3.70.* to 3.71.*.

This new migration process:

• Checks to see if the version we're on can be migrated from (e.g. ==3.70)
• Checks to see if the install is using OrientDb (and so needs to be upgraded)
• Checks to see if the machine has sufficient memory and disk space
• Backs up the OrientDb files from the $DataDir\db directory
• Downloads the migration tool
• Migrates the backed up databases
• Copies the migrated file(s) back to the database directory
• Updates the Nexus properties to enable the datastore

By default, the package just downloads the migrator file and adds the ConvertFrom-NexusOrientDb script to PATH. You can also pass /Migration to run it during the package installation.

After this is completed, you should be able to upgrade using the next available version of Nexus Repository - the 3.71.0.6 version will still break due to the merged files!

This works back to PowerShell v3, largely due to Compress-ArchiveCompat.

As mentioned, we now ensure that we are removing and replacing the program directory instead of copying over / merging it with the new content, as the upgrade to JRE and Nexus broke stuff with that strategy. The changes now source all connection variables in Wait-NexusAvailability (other than Hostname) from the on-disk configuration, and automatically backs-up and restores the port and SSL configuration if they are defined in the configuration. This should result in a smoother experience for people in future upgrades, and ensure Wait-NexusAvailability fails less frequently on SSL enabled installations.

Finally, we re-enable the update script for Nexus Repository.

The update script for the package will only find packages that match the 3.70 to 3.71 migration, currently! This is a mindful choice that we can reconsider in the future.

Motivation and Context

Nexus' recent update has added some fairly catastrophic breaking changes, and
necessitated a large addition to the install script for the sake of migrating
the database to the new H2 format (previously only available to pro customers)

Fixes #2516

How Has this Been Tested?

• Tested on Windows Server 2022 (PowerShell 5), upgrading from 3.70.x, with configured SSL
• Tested on Windows Server 2012 (PowerShell 3), upgrading from 3.70.x, without SSL

Types of changes

• [ ] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• [ ] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• [ ] Migrated package (a package has been migrated from another repository)

Checklist:

• My code follows the code style of this repository.
• My change requires a change to documentation (this usually means the notes in the description of a package).
• I have updated the documentation accordingly (this usually means the notes in the description of a package).
• I have updated the package description and it is less than 4000 characters.
• All files are up to date with the latest Contributing Guidelines
• The added/modified package passed install/uninstall in the Chocolatey Test Environment(https://github.com/chocolatey-community/chocolatey-test-environment/). Note that we don't support the use of any other environment.
• The changes only affect a single package (not including meta package).

The changes affect two packages, but this has been agreed with other members of the community to be alright.

[AppVeyorBot]

✅ Package verification completed without issues. PR is now pending human review

[AppVeyorBot]

✅ Package verification completed without issues. PR is now pending human review

[JPRuskin]

My one fun question is "do we want to handle trying to fix up installs where they have attempted to upgrade to 3.71.0.6 and it's failed"?

I suspect they will be in a fun state.

Edit: I think this should sort of work, now.
Edit Edit: No, changed my mind. If 3.71 has been dropped, JRE is >11, so the migrator will no longer have a compatible version of JRE. People with a failed upgrade are in a Bad State™️, and need manual intervention to get out.

Final edit: popped a bonus script into the migrator package.

[AppVeyorBot]

❌ Package verification failed, please review the Appveyor Logs and the provided Artifacts before requesting a human reviewer to take a look.

[AppVeyorBot]

✅ Package verification completed without issues. PR is now pending human review

[AppVeyorBot]

✅ Package verification completed without issues. PR is now pending human review

[AppVeyorBot]

✅ Package verification completed without issues. PR is now pending human review

[AppVeyorBot]

✅ Package verification completed without issues. PR is now pending human review

[AppVeyorBot]

✅ Package verification completed without issues. PR is now pending human review

[AppVeyorBot]

❌ Package verification failed, please review the Appveyor Logs and the provided Artifacts before requesting a human reviewer to take a look.

[JPRuskin]

Just to keep people updated:

I'm (we're) happy with the code in this PR, so it's ready for review. However, we're keeping it in draft because Sonatype have a few changes they're making to the migrator to not break indexes and such. Until that new version is released, we [probably] shouldn't release this package. It's arguable.

That said, please do let loose with feedback.

Edit: It looks like it's been released.

[AppVeyorBot]

❌ Package verification failed, please review the Appveyor Logs and the provided Artifacts before requesting a human reviewer to take a look.

[AppVeyorBot]

✅ Package verification completed without issues. PR is now pending human review

[AppVeyorBot]

✅ Package verification completed without issues. PR is now pending human review

[AppVeyorBot]

✅ Package verification completed without issues. PR is now pending human review

Stevie's out for the next while, and has expressed that I'm good to dismiss it in favour of other reviews.

[Windos]

Neither a solid approve or change request from me, just the result of my personal testing.

As mentioned in the inline comments, I originally didn't see that the migrator package had a parameter that needed to be passed in if I wanted to attempt the migration at install time. This led to issues with my trying to run the migrator after the fact.

I mentioned at least one variable defined in the install which is then used in the migration script (I didn't see any others) but even when manually re-creating that variable the migration did not succeed.

I ended up having to force a re-install of the migration package with the /AttemptMigration parameter and then the migration worked as expected.

I'm not sure if the best way to stop people like me from holding this wrong is in the documentation (i.e. adding to the "you need to install this migration package" error) or code (making attempting the migration the default behaviour), that is probably worth a discussion?

[AppVeyorBot]

✅ Package verification completed without issues. PR is now pending human review

[JPRuskin]

3.72 has now been released; it would be good to get that packaged and pushed. Does anyone fancy re-reviewing this, based on the changes made to address the feedback given?

@Windos @pauby @steviecoaster

[pauby]

Note I'm not reviewing the code or testing the install / upgrade / uninstall.

[AppVeyorBot]

✅ Package verification completed without issues. PR is now pending human review

[pauby]

I know I've said this a few times, but just being clear again, I have not checked the code or tested this package. Just the wording.

[Windos]

I can re-do my testing of the code in the morning, should have results up ~16 hours

[pauby]

@TheCakeIsNaOH as you reviewed this previously, are you able to review this again and approve or add comments?

Unless anybody else feels strongly, once we have @Windos and @TheCakeIsNaOH review, I suggest we merge this.