There has been discussion on IRC about a matter related to versioned
repositories that needs to be broadened. It dealt with situations
whereby a new repository version exists in the DB in an incomplete
state. The incomplete state exists because conceptually a repository
version includes both the version record itself and all of the DB
records that associate content. For several reasons, the entire version
cannot be constructed in the DB in a single DB transaction. The problem
of /Incomplete State/ is not unique to repository versions. It applies
to publications as well. I would like to discuss and decide on a
standard approach to resolving this throughout the data model.
The IRC discussion (as related to me) suggested we use a common approach
of having a field in the DB that indicates this state. This seems
reasonable to me. As noted, it's a common approach. Thoughts?
Assume we did use a field, let's discuss name. It's my understanding
that a field named /is_visible/ or just /visible/ was discussed. I
would argue two things. 1) the is_ prefix is redundant to the fact it's
a boolean field and we have not used this convention anywhere else in
the model. 2) Historically, the term /"visible"/ has strong ties to
user interfaces and is used to mask fields or records from being
displayed to users. I propose we use a more appropriate field name.
Perhaps /"valid"/. Thoughts?
_______________________________________________
Pulp-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
