[Pulp-dev] Partially constructed data in the DB

[David Davis]

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?

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?

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?


David

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Jeff Ortel <jortel at redhat.com> wrote:

> 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?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20171213/17df5d5e/attachment.htm>