[Pulp-dev] 'id' versus 'pulp_id' on Content
jortel at redhat.com
Thu Jun 14 19:24:58 UTC 2018
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, 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.
> 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  in the CLI. I must have been rather annoyed
> at the time, since I still remember ;-)
>  https://www.redhat.com/archives/pulp-list/2016-March/msg00048.html
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pulp-dev