Jeff, can you elaborate more on your -1. I want to understand it. I'm struggling to appreciate an "it's a convention" argument without sources like an RFC or similar. I don't believe internet articles are credible sources because any viewpoint can be validated by an internet post.
To recap my interests here, it's about being responsive to the community. We ask plugin writers for feedback and from two independent plugin writers (not me) we received feedback that this name wasn't ideal. I want us to be responsive to that. It's not only because I think their technical feedback is legit (albeit small), but also because it's our strategy during the beta/RC of Pulp3 core is to make adjustments based on plugin writer feedback. To receive feedback and choose to not follow the recommendation they suggested feels like not the way I want to interact with plugin writers. This is my main concern with not making a change in this area. All the best, Brian On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Jeff Ortel <jor...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On 06/12/2018 05:03 PM, David Davis wrote: > > I do think the most compelling case for renaming the field is having > feedback from plugin writers to do so and also the desire to reduce > complexity for plugin writers. Honestly, I am on the fence about renaming > the field. > > Just to clarify, is anyone a hard -1 on renaming id? > > > -1 > > > > > David > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 5:11 PM, David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Silly question, but could we just call our 'id' 'pk' instead? Since >>>> that is a fully reserved value in Django for the primary key it seems >>>> clearest to just use that? What about that? >>>> >>> >>> Are you recommending we rename the id field to pk in the database? I’m >>> not sure if that would work. >>> >> >> I'm wondering if its possible yes. #django says it is but they've been >> wrong before. I haven't had a chance to test it. >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 3:44 PM, Jeff Ortel <jor...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 06/08/2018 02:57 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> @jortel: We're blocked on your -1 vote expressed for 3704. We have >>>>>> practical plugin writer issues with the current state. Can you elaborate >>>>>> on >>>>>> why we shouldn't go forward with https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3704 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The 'ID' column is reserved for the primary key and is inappropriate >>>>> for natural keys. This is well establish convention and best practice. >>>> >>>> >>>> I don't understand this reasoning. Earlier in the thread we discussed >>>> how the sources recommending these conventions also mention that if we have >>>> a practical reason or problem with that convention to do something >>>> differently. We received complaints on this name about collisions so I >>>> don't follow how we should still follow the convention. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Plugin writers specify natural keys. Also, by introducing '_' prefix >>>>> (or any prefix) means a table could have both 'ID' and '_ID' columns which >>>>> is especially confusing since the 'ID' column would not be the primary >>>>> key. >>>>> >>>> >>>> We have two concepts here that are similar, so I think that problem is >>>> mostly unrelated to this decision. For example, if we leave the names as-is >>>> we have this problem only now it's named id and errata_id and in addition >>>> we'll have the problems listed below. >>>> >>>> >>>>> How does naming the natural key for an rpm as 'rpm_id' cause a >>>>> significant problem for plugin writers? >>>>> >>>> >>>> It's a good question because it's the whole motivation for this change. >>>> It's not an rpm, it's an erratum which doesn't have nevra like a package. >>>> It's also the problem from another content type I heard about at Config >>>> Management Camp. >>>> >>>> It causes problems in two ways: >>>> >>>> * 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, wouldn’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. >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> * plugins specifically may wrap other tools and now they have to >>>> maintain mappings as well. This is specifically the case with errata which >>>> the data model is design to be name-for-name identical to the createrepo_c >>>> interface >>>> >>>> >>> Mapping one field to another seems rather minor. Or am I missing >>> something? >>> >> >> After 22 emails on this thread it feels like a mountain out of a >> molehill. I don't mean to waste people's time and energy. The reason I >> continue to advocate for it is because when two, independent plugin writers >> give feedback suggesting change, even small change, we should adopt it. The >> complexity is minor, but it's there. I've always believed minimizing >> complexity has been our goal. >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> @bmbouters: just curious, where does the rpm 'id' come from and how is >>>>> it used differently than the NEVREA composite natural key. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>> >>>> >>> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > Pulp-dev@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
