[Pulp-dev] [pulp-internal] Recommend #2950 be re-prioritized.

[Jeff Ortel]

On 09/28/2017 08:56 AM, Dennis Kliban wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Jeff Ortel <jortel at redhat.com <mailto:jortel at redhat.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Team,
> 
>     I am fine with revisiting storage as some point but disagree that #2950 should be *high* priority (higher than
>     most other tasks) and should not aligned with sprint 26.  As noted in redmine, Our FileStorage implementation
>     conforms to the django storage interface, is simple and tested.  The django provided FileSystemStorage has
>     concerning code quality and is completely undocumented.  To safely subclass it will require inspecting the
>     code line-by-line to ensure predictable behavior when overriding any of it's methods.  As you all know,
>     reliable storage is a critical part of Pulp.
> 
> 
> We use the rest of Django without inspecting every line of code, so I don't see a reason to treat the
> FileSystem storage backend any different. We are using Django so we can reduce the amount of code we are
> maintaining ourselves. Completely reimplementing the storage backend goes against that goal. I plan to work on
> this issue today.

The rest of django is documented.  The FileSystemStorage class is not.  Not even docstrings.  It has
undocumented behaviors and the only way to understand them is to read the code.

I just have a hard time understanding why this is higher priority than these other sprint tasks like:

3024	content creation API does not validate the hostname portion of the URL.
3021	Database writes are not all recorded in DB
2994	Erratum not updated after upstream change
2988	Exception when raising a user-Defined that has a custom __init__.
2373	Planning on how to support global importer

And ... everything else left to do for the MVP.

> 
> -Dennis
> 
> 
>     As I said, it's a fine idea to revisit this.  But, looking at the other tasks aligned to sprint 26 (and, all
>     the work left to do for the MVP), this is not higher priority.
> 
>     -jeff
> 
> 
>     https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2950 <https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2950>
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 847 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20170928/626713df/attachment.sig>