<html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> </head> <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> Thanks for your comment, Simon. This introduces a perspective that is helpful to the discussion. Filtering on an 'ID' natural key field (such as errata_ID) in a way that is intuitive to the user is a significant use case. <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 06/14/2018 12:32 PM, Simon Baatz wrote: </div> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:20180614173212.GA8560@gandalf"> <pre wrap=""> My 2 cents (in my role as a user, not plugin writer): I think the most important argument in the entire discussion is this (not sure who said this): </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> * plugin users (not writers) who are familiar with 'id' as part of the erratum data type would then have to also understand this field name renaming that Pulp arbitrarily introduces. This could get confusing when the user submit a filter with id='ID-2115858' and they find nothing because 'id' is matching on the primary key not on the 'id' attribute of the errata like they expect. Those users would also be Pulp users so they'll understand that _id means the pk. By the same logic, if Pulp users know that id means pk, wouldnâ€™t they therefore understand that the id is not the erratum id? Yes by that logic they probably would know, but the actual errata field is named 'id' so my it's more about a correctness problem than confusion. A correctness problem that passes along to users. If we're going to have confusing names, let's pick names that allow for alignment with the names already chosen by content types which commonly do use 'id'. Plugin writer's aren't in control of those names; they already are chosen by content types. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> Assuming that Pulp users are aware of a pk named 'id' is a strong assumption. If the user is just managing entire repositories and searches content from time to time when troubleshooting (using a CLI for example), she/he could not care less that there is a field called "id" that is not what it seems to be. I think the entire discussion is focused on plugin writers too much. The user visible consequences of this decision are more important from my point of view. The situation is not directly comparable, but I already had fun with confusing id names [0] in the CLI. I must have been rather annoyed at the time, since I still remember ;-) [0] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.redhat.com/archives/pulp-list/2016-March/msg00048.html">https://www.redhat.com/archives/pulp-list/2016-March/msg00048.html</a> _______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com">Pulp-dev@redhat.com</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev</a> </pre> </blockquote> </body> </html>