<div dir="ltr">A few questions. First, what is meant by incomplete? I’m assuming it refers to a version in the process of being created or one that was not successfully created?<div><br></div><div>Also, what’s the motivation behind storing this information? Is there something in Pulp that needs to know this or is this so that the user can know?</div><div><br></div><div>Lastly, I imagine that a task will be associated with the creation of a version. Does knowing its state not suffice for determining if a version is visible/valid?</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>David<br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Jeff Ortel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jortel@redhat.com" target="_blank">jortel@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>There has been discussion on IRC about a matter related to
versioned repositories that needs to be broadened. It dealt with
situations whereby a new repository version exists in the DB in an
incomplete state. The incomplete state exists because
conceptually a repository version includes both the version record
itself and all of the DB records that associate content. For
several reasons, the entire version cannot be constructed in the
DB in a single DB transaction. The problem of <i>Incomplete State</i>
is not unique to repository versions. It applies to publications
as well. I would like to discuss and decide on a standard
approach to resolving this throughout the data model. <br>
</p>
<p>The IRC discussion (as related to me) suggested we use a common
approach of having a field in the DB that indicates this state.
This seems reasonable to me. As noted, it's a common approach.
Thoughts?</p>
<p>Assume we did use a field, let's discuss name. It's my
understanding that a field named <i>is_visible</i> or just <i>visible</i>
was discussed. I would argue two things. 1) the is_ prefix is
redundant to the fact it's a boolean field and we have not used
this convention anywhere else in the model. 2) Historically, the
term <i>"visible"</i> has strong ties to user interfaces and is
used to mask fields or records from being displayed to users. I
propose we use a more appropriate field name. Perhaps <i>"valid"</i>.
Thoughts?<br>
</p>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Pulp-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com">Pulp-dev@redhat.com</a><br>
<a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.redhat.com/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>