sbp commented on code in PR #1243:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/tooling-trusted-releases/pull/1243#discussion_r3243811414
##########
atr/get/committees.py:
##########
@@ -67,6 +68,20 @@ async def view(session: web.Public, _committees:
Literal["committees"], name: sa
)
names: dict[str, str | None] = {u.asfuid: u.name for u in
user_rows.scalars().all()}
+ fingerprints = [k.fingerprint for k in committee.public_signing_keys]
Review Comment:
I guess this means we're doing a bit like we do for checks, where we say
anything that hashes the same way is the same thing. I keep thinking that this
might have been a mistake in checks, because then we can't easily e.g. delete
results for a single release. But I'm still not sure either way. If it was a
mistake there (if!), then it might be a mistake here too.
##########
atr/models/sql.py:
##########
@@ -1641,6 +1641,31 @@ class ReleaseFileState(sqlmodel.SQLModel, table=True):
)
+# Artifact: Project, Release, Signing Key
+class Artifact(sqlmodel.SQLModel, table=True):
+ project_key: str = sqlmodel.Field(primary_key=True,
foreign_key="project.key", **example("example"))
+ version: str = sqlmodel.Field(primary_key=True, **example("0.0.1"))
+ artifact_path: str = sqlmodel.Field(primary_key=True,
**example("apache-example-0.0.1.tar.gz"))
+ # Link to ATR release record when one exists - null for historical SVN
artifacts
+ release_key: str | None = sqlmodel.Field(
+ default=None, foreign_key="release.key", index=True,
**example("example-0.0.1")
Review Comment:
For these foreign keys, shouldn't they cascade deletions? There was a
similar problem with the events recently that I fixed, which manifested during
tests. Also, since the `Artifact` here _does_ seem to be scoped to a release,
perhaps that underlines my other comment about fingerprints. Perhaps they
should be clearly scoped in the UI queries to a release too?
##########
migrations/versions/0083_2026.05.14_7c4f8a2e.py:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+# Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
+# or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file
+# distributed with this work for additional information
+# regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file
+# to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
+# "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
+# with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
+#
+# http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+#
+# Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing,
+# software distributed under the License is distributed on an
+# "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY
+# KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the
+# specific language governing permissions and limitations
+# under the License.
+
+"""Add Artifact catalog model for issue 911
+
+Revision ID: 0083_2026.05.14_7c4f8a2e
+Revises: 0082_2026.05.14_a1b2c3d4
+Create Date: 2026-05-14 00:00:00.000000+00:00
Review Comment:
Should we always use the real time, or are we relaxing that to just the date?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
