[Pulp-dev] Partially constructed data in the DB

[Jeff Ortel]

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 /Incomplete State/ 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.

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?

Assume we did use a field, let's discuss name.  It's my understanding 
that a field named /is_visible/ or just /visible/ 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 /"visible"/ 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 /"valid"/. Thoughts?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20171213/cc5e6351/attachment.htm>