Page MenuHomeSoftware Heritage

Add blake2s256 hash in the output of directory_ls.
Needs ReviewPublic

Authored by vlorentz on Tue, Jun 4, 2:48 PM.

Details

Reviewers
None
Group Reviewers
Reviewers
Summary

For consistency with other APIs that deal with content hashes.

Diff Detail

Repository
rDSTO Storage manager
Branch
directory_ls_blake2s256
Lint
No Linters Available
Unit
No Unit Test Coverage
Build Status
Buildable 6008
Build 8251: tox-on-jenkinsJenkins
Build 8250: arc lint + arc unit

Event Timeline

vlorentz created this revision.Tue, Jun 4, 2:48 PM
vlorentz edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)Tue, Jun 4, 2:48 PM
zack added a subscriber: zack.Tue, Jun 4, 7:57 PM

Do we really want to do this?

I'd be inclined to rather drop blake2s256 all together from the storage, given the future of git is sha256 and I don't see us diverging in the short term.

No idea. I'm writing new tests for swh-storage, and noticed it was missing here.

@zack: I'd be inclined to rather drop blake2s256 all together from the storage, given the future of git is sha256 and I don't see us diverging in the short term.
@vlorentz: No idea. I'm writing new tests for swh-storage, and noticed it was missing here.

If we apply this logic, it's not only on directory that this is missing...
Can we drop this diff then?

That's one less diff hanging.

If we apply this logic, it's not only on directory that this is missing...

nevermind, i misunderstood the diff.
Nonetheless, if we drop the blake column in content, this diff becomes something to undo later.
So let's discuss this f2f after the weekly meeting (with maybe others ;)

Cheers,