[Pulp-dev] 'id' versus 'pulp_id' on Content

[Jeff Ortel]

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.

On 06/14/2018 12:32 PM, Simon Baatz wrote:
> 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):
>
>>     * 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, wouldn’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.
>
> 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] https://www.redhat.com/archives/pulp-list/2016-March/msg00048.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180614/1d4c5dcf/attachment.htm>