You have added code to throw an exception if multiple migration executions happening simultaneously. For my AuthPermissions.AspNetCore library (shorted to AuthP) I created a library to migrate multiples databases sequentially - see RunStartupMethodsSequentially. Unfortunately I can't find an way to turn off your concurrent migrations check.
What I, and the users who my library, I need a way to turn off the "concurrent migrations" check.
I know that you all think that applying migrations at deployment the the best approach, but I think it shouldn't be the ONLY way to migrate databases. I'm always trying to make it easier for developers to create their app, but I always provide a solution or say there are limitations. I have provided a robust way to deploy on startup in my RunStartupMethodsSequentially library, and within my AuthP library have added a "Down for maintenance" feature to allow the databases/setups can be updated while the application is live. These are both valid approaches.
NOTE: Good news, it only needed a small change. See my close comment with the solution.
You have added code to throw an exception if multiple migration executions happening simultaneously. For my AuthPermissions.AspNetCore library (shorted to AuthP) I created a library to migrate multiples databases sequentially - see RunStartupMethodsSequentially. Unfortunately I can't find an way to turn off your concurrent migrations check.
What I, and the users who my library, I need a way to turn off the "concurrent migrations" check.
I know that you all think that applying migrations at deployment the the best approach, but I think it shouldn't be the ONLY way to migrate databases. I'm always trying to make it easier for developers to create their app, but I always provide a solution or say there are limitations. I have provided a robust way to deploy on startup in my RunStartupMethodsSequentially library, and within my AuthP library have added a "Down for maintenance" feature to allow the databases/setups can be updated while the application is live. These are both valid approaches.
NOTE: Good news, it only needed a small change. See my close comment with the solution.