Maybe _created > _id > _last_updated >
? I'm not sure whether we use pk or id more often, but we use both quite a lot. On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 9:22 AM, David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> wrote: > Correct me if I’m wrong but don’t we call pk in most places instead of id? > If so, it would seem like replacing id with pulp_id wouldn’t be that ugly. > > Also, I wonder about the created and last_updated fields. Seems like those > could cause conflicts in the future too. At the very least, it might be > nice to document which field names are reserved on the Content model. > > David > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 8:50 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> Currently the Content model [0] has 'id' as it's primary key which is >> inherited from MasterModel here [1]. By naming our pk 'id', we are >> preventing plugin writers from also using that field. That field name is >> common for content types. For example: both RPM and Nuget content also >> expect to use the 'id' field to store data about the content type itself >> (not Pulp's pk). We learned about the Nuget incompatibility at >> ConfigMgmgtCamp from a community member. I learned about this issue with >> RPM from @dalley. >> >> The only workaround a plugin writer has is to call their field 'rpm_id' >> or something like that. I don't see how it's unavoidable that this renaming >> won't be passed directly onto the user for things like filtering, creating >> units, etc. I think that is an undesirable outcome just so that the Pulp pk >> can be named 'id'. >> >> One option would be to rename 'id' to 'pulp_id' at the MasterModel. This >> is also somewhat ugly for Pulp developers, but it would be (a) crystal >> clear to the user in all cases and (b) allow Content writers to model their >> content types correctly. >> > >> Another option would be to rename the pk for 'Content' specifically and >> not at the MasterModel level. I think that would create more confusion than >> benefit so I recommend doing it at the MasterModel level. >> >> What do you all think? >> >> [0]: https://github.com/pulp/pulp/blob/6f492ee8fac94b8562dc62d87e >> 6886869e052e7e/pulpcore/pulpcore/app/models/content.py#L106 >> [1]: https://github.com/pulp/pulp/blob/d1dc089890f167617fe9917af0 >> 87d5587708296b/pulpcore/pulpcore/app/models/base.py#L25 >> >> -Brian >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
