Tag: git

How to revert to previous packages if Laravel’s “composer update” breaks site?

admin

When you run composer update and some packages break after the update, you can revert your project to the previous working state. Here’s how to handle it:

1. Check composer.lock file

After running composer update, the composer.lock file gets updated with the new versions of your dependencies. If things break, you can use Git to revert to the previous composer.lock.

2. Revert composer.lock using Git

If you are using Git and you committed the composer.lock file before running the update, you can easily go back to the previous version of the file. Here’s how:

git checkout HEAD^ composer.lock

This command checks out the previous version of the composer.lock file (the version before the last commit). If you want to revert to a specific commit, use the commit hash instead:

git checkout <commit-hash> composer.lock

3. Reinstall the previous dependencies

After reverting the composer.lock file, you need to install the previous versions of the packages defined in the restored composer.lock:

composer install

Note: Do not use composer update, as this will update the packages again. composer install will install the versions defined in composer.lock.

4. Commit the reverted composer.lock (if necessary)

After confirming that everything works as expected, commit the reverted composer.lock file:

git add composer.lock
git commit -m "Revert composer.lock to previous working state"

5. Lock Specific Package Versions (Optional)

If you want to prevent certain packages from being updated in the future, you can specify the exact versions in composer.json by using the caret (^) or tilde (~) version constraints. For example:

{
   "require": {
       "package/name": "^1.0"
   }
}

This ensures that composer update won’t update beyond the specified version.

By following these steps, you can safely revert your Composer dependencies back to a working state after an update causes issues.

What is the difference between ‘git push – set-usptream origin ‘ and ‘git push’

admin

Difference Between git push --set-upstream origin and git push

The difference between git push --set-upstream origin <branch> and git push lies in how they handle the relationship between your local branch and the remote branch.

1. git push --set-upstream origin <branch>

  • Purpose: This command pushes your local branch to the remote repository and establishes a tracking relationship between the local branch and the remote branch.
  • Upstream Tracking: It sets the upstream branch for the current local branch. After this, future git push and git pull commands can be used without specifying the remote or branch name.
  • Example: 
    git push --set-upstream origin feature-branch

    This pushes the feature-branch to the origin remote and sets it as the upstream branch for the current local branch.

  • Use case: If you’re pushing a branch to the remote for the first time or if the local branch does not yet have an upstream branch set, this command ensures that future pushes/pulls can be done with fewer commands.

2. git push

  • Purpose: This command pushes your current branch to the remote repository, but only if an upstream branch is already set.
  • No Upstream Tracking: If the current branch doesn’t have an upstream (tracking) branch set, Git will return an error and ask you to specify where to push.
  • Example: 
    git push

    If you’re on feature-branch and an upstream branch is already set (e.g., from a previous --set-upstream command), it pushes to the appropriate remote and branch.

  • Use case: Use this when the upstream branch is already set, and you just want to push your changes without specifying details.

So, in short:

  • git push --set-upstream origin <branch>: Pushes the branch and sets up a connection between your local and remote branch for future operations.
  • git push: Pushes to the remote branch, but only if the upstream branch is already set.

Vite assets are still localhost on production server

admin

If you are using vite.js (for example when using Laravel assets bundler) then running the npm run build command triggers the build process for your project. When you run this command, Vite.js will perform several tasks to prepare your application for production deployment.

If you use Git and upload/deploy your files to production server and you css is not working then check the source code.  If you see something like this on your production server :

<script type="module" src="http://127.0.0.1:4523/@vite/client"></script>
<script type="module" src="http://127.0.0.1:4523/resources/js/app.js"></script></code>

then check if the “hot” file was accidentally uploaded to your server (github) to your Laravel public folder. Delete it and it should work. This file is used when running the dev server but will break production.

To exclude this file being uploaded to github you add it to .gitignore file:

/public/hot

Is it better to make several commits and then push to github or push each commit immediately?

admin

The decision of whether to make several commits and then push to GitHub or push each commit immediately depends on your workflow and the nature of the changes you are making. Both approaches have their merits, and the choice ultimately depends on your preferences and the collaboration model of your project.

1. Making Several Commits and Pushing at Once:

  • Advantages:
    • Cleaner History: Grouping related changes into separate commits can create a more organized and meaningful commit history, making it easier to understand the evolution of the project.
    • Atomic Changes: Each commit represents a discrete, self-contained change, making it easier to revert specific changes if needed.
    • Reduced Noise: Pushing frequently can clutter the commit history with minor or incomplete changes, which can be avoided with periodic pushes.
  • Considerations:
    • Avoid Pushing Broken Code: If you push only when your code is in a stable state, this approach can work well. Otherwise, you might introduce bugs to the shared repository.
    • Better for Collaboration: If multiple team members are working on the same branch, making several commits before pushing can reduce conflicts and simplify the review process.

2. Pushing Each Commit Immediately:

  • Advantages:
    • Real-Time Collaboration: Other team members can see and potentially build upon your latest changes immediately.
    • Continuous Integration: Pushing frequently can trigger automated tests or deployment pipelines, allowing you to catch issues early.
    • Incremental Sharing: If your commits are small and well-tested, pushing immediately can help you share your progress incrementally.
  • Considerations:
    • Messy History: Frequent, small commits can lead to a cluttered commit history, making it harder to follow the logical progression of changes.
    • Rollback Complications: If you realize you need to revert a specific feature or change, it might be more complicated to isolate and revert individual commits.

In practice, developers often strike a balance between the two approaches. They make smaller, meaningful commits locally while working on a feature or bug fix, ensuring their changes are logically grouped. Once the feature or fix is complete, they perform a final review of the commits and possibly squash or rebase them into more coherent, atomic commits before pushing to GitHub. This approach combines the benefits of both methods and creates a clean, organized commit history while still maintaining real-time collaboration with the team.

Ultimately, the key is to communicate and align with your team on the preferred approach and follow any established guidelines or best practices for your project.