Hi,
I am not currently very well versed in the classes involved, but moving relative_path around sounds slightly scary with the potential to break things. As such, I would be interested to be kept in the loop as this moves forward. (Mailing list once there is some movement is entirely sufficient 😉) Thanks, Quirin Pamp ________________________________ From: pulp-dev-boun...@redhat.com <pulp-dev-boun...@redhat.com> on behalf of Ina Panova <ipan...@redhat.com> Sent: 21 April 2020 14:07:13 To: Daniel Alley <dal...@redhat.com> Cc: Pulp-dev <pulp-dev@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Pulp-dev] the "relative path" problem Daniel, how about setting up a meeting and brainstorm the alternatives, pros/cons there? -------- Regards, Ina Panova Senior Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc. "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 5:57 PM Daniel Alley <dal...@redhat.com<mailto:dal...@redhat.com>> wrote: Bump, this item needs to move forwards soon. Does anyone have any thoughts? On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 9:40 AM Pavel Picka <ppi...@redhat.com<mailto:ppi...@redhat.com>> wrote: Hi, I'd like to add one more question to this topic. Do you think it is a blocker for PRs [0] & [1] as by testing [2] this features I haven't run into real world example where two really same name packages appears. I think this is a 'must have' feature but until we solve/decide it we can have two features working may with warning in docs for users that can happen in some 'special' repositories. To follow topic directly I like proposed move to 'RepositoryContent' and add it to its uniqueness constraint (if I understand well). [0] https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/pull/1657 [1] https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/pull/1642 [2] tested with centos 7, 8, opensuse and SLE repositories On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 3:22 PM Daniel Alley <dal...@redhat.com<mailto:dal...@redhat.com>> wrote: We'd like to start a discussion on the "relative path problem" identified recently. Problem: Currently, a relative_path is tied to content in Pulp. This means that if a content unit exists in two places within a repository or across repositories, it has to be stored as two separate content units. This creates redundant data and potential confusion for users. As a specific example, we need to support mirroring content in pulp_rpm<https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6353>. Currently, for each location at which a single package is stored, we’ll need to create a content unit. We could end up with several records representing a single package. Users may be confused about why they see multiple records for a package and they may have trouble for example deciding which content unit to copy. Proposed Solution: Move “relative_path” from its current location on ContentArtifact, to RepositoryContent. This will require a sizable data migration. It is possibly the case that in rare cases, repository versions may change slightly due to deduplication. A repository-version-wide uniqueness constraint will be present on “relative_path”, independently of any other repository uniquness constraints (repo_key_fields) defined by the plugin writer. Modify the Stages API so that the relative_path can be processed in the correct location – instead of “DeclarativeArtifact” it will likely need to go on “DeclarativeContent” Remove “location_href” from the RPM Package content model – it was never a true part of the RPM (file) metadata, it is derived from the repository metadata. So storing it as a part of the Content unit doesn’t entirely make sense. Alternatives In most cases, a content unit will have a single relative path for a content unit. Creating a general solution to solve a one-off problem is usually not a good idea. As an alternative, we could look at another solution for mirroring content. One example might be to create a new object (e.g. RpmRepoMirrorContentMapping) that maps content to specific paths within a repo or repo version. Questions * How do we handle this in pulp_file? How are content units identified in pulp_file without relative_path? * Checksum? * How was this problem handled in Pulp 2? Please weigh in if you have any input on potential problems with the proposal, potential alternate solutions, or other insights or questions! _______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com<mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev -- Pavel Picka Red Hat _______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com<mailto: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
