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

[Brian Bouterse]

Currently the Content model [0] has 'id' as it's primary key which is
inherited from MasterModel here [1]. By naming our pk 'id', we are
preventing plugin writers from also using that field. That field name is
common for content types. For example: both RPM and Nuget content also
expect to use the 'id' field to store data about the content type itself
(not Pulp's pk). We learned about the Nuget incompatibility at
ConfigMgmgtCamp from a community member. I learned about this issue with
RPM from @dalley.

The only workaround a plugin writer has is to call their field 'rpm_id' or
something like that. I don't see how it's unavoidable that this renaming
won't be passed directly onto the user for things like filtering, creating
units, etc. I think that is an undesirable outcome just so that the Pulp pk
can be named 'id'.

One option would be to rename 'id' to 'pulp_id' at the MasterModel. This is
also somewhat ugly for Pulp developers, but it would be (a) crystal clear
to the user in all cases and (b) allow Content writers to model their
content types correctly.

Another option would be to rename the pk for 'Content' specifically and not
at the MasterModel level. I think that would create more confusion than
benefit so I recommend doing it at the MasterModel level.

What do you all think?

[0]:
https://github.com/pulp/pulp/blob/6f492ee8fac94b8562dc62d87e6886869e052e7e/pulpcore/pulpcore/app/models/content.py#L106
[1]:
https://github.com/pulp/pulp/blob/d1dc089890f167617fe9917af087d5587708296b/pulpcore/pulpcore/app/models/base.py#L25

-Brian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20180523/9eec2417/attachment.htm>