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> 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 > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > -- Pavel Picka Red Hat
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
