checkbox-dev team mailing list archive

[Zygmunt Krynicki <zygmunt.krynicki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Daniel Manrique <
daniel.manrique@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 14-02-17 02:32 PM, Zygmunt Krynicki wrote:
> > 1. I would like to propose that the on-disk format field ``name`` be
> deprecated
> >    and not used anymore.
> > 2. If the field ``name`` is used, it will be transparently mapped to
> ``id`` and
> >    used to define the new job attribute ``JobDefinition.id``. All uses of
> >    ``name`` will cause warnings to be logged. After a while we can
> remove that
> >    feature and rejects the ``name`` field (for another period, after
> which we
> >    could reuse it).
> > 3. A new field ``summary`` is defined and mandatory for all jobs. The
> summary
> >    field must be one line, short (capped to some reasonable amount) and
> should
> >    be derived from the current name field in a meaningful way (manually,
> one
> >    time transition process).
> > 4. The ``summary`` field will be translatable
> > 5. PlainBox will resort to ``JobDefinition.summary`` instead of ``.id``
> >    whenever the job needs to be displayed or converted to a string.
> >
> > Impact
> > ======
> >
> > This proposal would need to see forked job definitions *or* add support
> for
> > ``summary`` in the old checkbox. The level of required support is
> minimal, only
> > to the point where current functionality does not regress
>
> +1 on this, adding support for "summary" to old checkbox should be easy,
> we just
> need to ensure that the submission parser used in c3 doesn't choke on it (I
> don't think it will). This was done for estimated_duration and the
> transition
> was pretty smooth.
>
> Anyway this probably will be easier to do and maintain than forking all
> the job
> definitions; this is a part that changes often and keeping them in sync
> may be
> labor-intensive.
>
> Once we remove "name", will we need to start adding "id" to jobs as well?
> wouldn't it be equivalent to just add "summary" and use that when the job
> needs
> to be displayed, only using "id" in e.g. whitelists and internally?
>
>
I was hoping that we could do one-time s/name:/id:/g across all jobs and
just teach checkbox to use that. The reason to block name for a while is to
cope with cases where someone has jobs that were not transitioned and still
wants to use them. I think we should support that use case for as long as
possible.

Alternatively we could just stick with name, and although confusing, it
could work.

Thanks
ZK