[Pulp-dev] 'id' versus 'pulp_id' on Content
dalley at redhat.com
Wed May 23 13:31:02 UTC 2018
I'm not sure whether we use pk or id more often, but we use both quite a
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 9:22 AM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:
> Correct me if I’m wrong but don’t we call pk in most places instead of id?
> If so, it would seem like replacing id with pulp_id wouldn’t be that ugly.
> Also, I wonder about the created and last_updated fields. Seems like those
> could cause conflicts in the future too. At the very least, it might be
> nice to document which field names are reserved on the Content model.
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 8:50 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>> Currently the Content model  has 'id' as it's primary key which is
>> inherited from MasterModel here . 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?
>> : https://github.com/pulp/pulp/blob/6f492ee8fac94b8562dc62d87e
>> : https://github.com/pulp/pulp/blob/d1dc089890f167617fe9917af0
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pulp-dev