Limit search-replace in DB --wp_db_id="wp_posts:1234" (New command parameter)

[camya]

I often want to apply the wp search-replace command to only one single database record. (Sometimes for testing, sometimes, because I know, that I only have to replace data in one post.) Most often it's a single post ID in wp_posts.

Current situation:

The following command makes a dry run to replace "each and every" match of class="old". It's not possible to limit it to one id of a specific WordPress table.

wp search-replace 'class="old"' 'class="new"' --log --dry-run

Feature request

Add a new command parameter (--wp_db_id="") to set the database table name and the id of a record in order to limit the search-replace command.

--wp_db_id="wp_posts:123"

The correct id field for each WordPress entity is mapped automatically internally. See example below.

Mapping example

• --wp_db_id="wp_posts:123" (translates internally into wp_posts.ID=123)
• --wp_db_id="wp_options:789" (translates into wp_options.option_id=789)
• --wp_db_id="wp_terms:1823" (translates into wp_terms.term_id=1823)

--wp_db_id="{WordPress table name}:{id}"

New command demo

The new command looks like this. It only replaces the record with wp_options.option_id=789.

wp search-replace 'class="old"' 'class="new"' --wp_db_id="wp_options:789" --log --dry-run

Exra feature: Comma separated list of ids

May it's also possible, to add more than one id.

--wp_db_id="wp_terms:1823,1233,2399"

[schlessera]

I think the idea has merit, but I'm not too sure about the naming.

We can already limit the search&replace operation to a single (or a set of) table(s) by just appending the table name as a positional argument.

So all we'd need would be to add a --rows=<ids...> field instead.

Sample use case:

# Your example above with the new syntax:
wp search-replace 'class="old"' 'class="new"' wp_options --row=789 --log --dry-run

# Multiple tables and multiple rows possible:
wp search-replace "old" "new" wp_posts wp_post_meta --rows=1,2,3

What do you think about that syntax?

[camya]

Hi Alain. Nice to meet you.

For sure, the syntax is strange. I think, the entiy and id have to be connected together in one command parameter in order to avoid strage side effects.

In your 2nd example, this means that the 6 records will be updated (if there is a match.)

Updates these records.

• wp_posts.ID=1
• wp_posts.ID=2
• wp_posts.ID=3
• wp_postmeta.meta_id=1
• wp_postmeta.meta_id=2
• wp_postmeta.meta_id=3

I guess, this could easily update the wrong records.

But I like the --rows idea nevertheless.

[camya]

Idea: --rows supports only one table

The --rows=<ids...> parameter is only allowed in connection with ONE table.

If the user ads more than one table to the command, it throws an error message.

"--rows=<ids...> only works with one table. Too many tables set in command."

[fancsali]

I just want to say, I just spent hours with doing search and replace by hand, so I can only change the latest revision of one of my huge posts.

So, this feature would be highly appreciated...

[danielbachhuber]

Open to considering this if we can figure out the naming!