Re: [Pulp-dev] 'id' versus 'pulp_id' on Content

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? David On Tue, Jun

Re: [Pulp-dev] 'id' versus 'pulp_id' on Content

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 5:11 PM, David Davis wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Brian Bouterse > 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

Re: [Pulp-dev] 'id' versus 'pulp_id' on Content

+1 to everything daviddavis just said. Dana Walker Associate Software Engineer Red Hat On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 5:11 PM, David Davis wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Brian Bouterse > wrote: > >> Silly question, but could we just call

Re: [Pulp-dev] 'id' versus 'pulp_id' on Content

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Brian Bouterse 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

Re: [Pulp-dev] 'id' versus 'pulp_id' on Content

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? On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 3:44 PM, Jeff Ortel wrote: > On 06/08/2018 02:57 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote: > >> >>

Re: [Pulp-dev] 'id' versus 'pulp_id' on Content

> > just curious, where does the rpm 'id' come from and how is it used > differently than the NEVREA composite natural key. It's a part of Erratum, not the actual RPM content, so it's unrelated to NVREA. An example of an errata "id" would be "RHEA-2013:1777". I agree with your point about '_id'