Page MenuHomeSoftware Heritage
Differential D1617 Diff 5376 docs/specs/spec-loading.rst

Changeset View

Standalone View

View Options

docs/specs/spec-loading.rst

Loading specification (draft) Loading specification
============================= =====================
This part discusses the deposit loading part on the server side. This part specifies the ingestion of the deposit in the SWH archive, using
the tarball loader and the complete schema of software artifacts creation
in the archive.
zackUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

"this part" ... of what?

Alternative beginning suggestion: "This specification describes the …"

Also, on first use I like to have Software Heritage in full, e.g., "Software Heritage (SWH) archive", so that the acronym is defined for later.

zack: "this part" ... of what? Alternative beginning suggestion: "This specification describes the…
moraneggAuthorUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

I agree. This page is a part of a collection of specifications, this is why it starts that way, but I prefer starting fresh as you suggest also with the full definition of the acronym.

moranegg: I agree. This page is a part of a collection of specifications, this is why it starts that way…
Tarball Loading Tarball Loading
--------------- ---------------
The ``swh-loader-tar`` module is already able to inject tarballs in swh The ``swh-loader-tar`` module is already able to inject tarballs in swh
with very limited metadata (mainly the origin). with very limited metadata (mainly the origin).
The loading of the deposit will use the deposit's associated data: The loading of the deposit will use the deposit's associated data:
* the metadata * the metadata
* the archive(s) * the archive(s)
We will use the ``synthetic`` revision notion.
To that revision will be associated the metadata. Those will be included SWH artifacts creation
in the hash computation, thus resulting in a unique identifier. ----------------------
Loading mapping Deposit to artifacts mapping
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some of those metadata will also be included in the ``origin_metadata`` This is a global view of the deposit ingestion
table.
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|swh artifact | representation in deposit |
+===================================+========================================+
|origin | https://hal.inria.fr/hal-id |
ardumontUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

Indentation of the url?

ardumont: Indentation of the url?
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------------+
zackUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

I don't get what this means. "origin_visit" is an internal table name. You probably mean a specific field in that table? Either way, I suggest to use a descriptive name, with the SQL path as additional detail, e.g., "timestamp of the visit (origin_visit.field_name)".

zack: I don't get what this means. "origin_visit" is an internal table name. You probably mean a…
moraneggAuthorUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

I kept it from the original specs when there was no snapshots.
Maybe the best solution it to erase the line above.
and change in snaphot the deposit representation to:

snapshotreception of all occurrences (branches)

How does it sound?

moranegg: I kept it from the original specs when there was no snapshots. Maybe the best solution it to…
|origin_visit | 1 :reception_date |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|origin_metadata | aggregated metadata |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------------+
zackUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

minor grammar issue: "at visit" ← not sure what this means

zack: minor grammar issue: "at visit" ← not sure what this means
moraneggAuthorUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

I agree. see comment above.

moranegg: I agree. see comment above.
|snapshot | at visit of all occurences |
ardumontUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

occur`r`ence

ardumont: occur`r`ence
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|occurrence & occurrence_history | master & |
zackUnsubmitted
Not Done
Inline Actions

Are the branches actually optional? Don't we always have at least one release here?

Relatedly: this use case seems similar with package manager listers/loaders, we should compare with what they do and make sure we are consistent. In particular, I'm not sure we have a "master" branch there, most likely we have a "HEAD" branch, pointing to the most recent version at visit time + one branch for each release (the current one + all previous ones).

zack: Are the branches actually optional? Don't we always have at least one release here? Relatedly…
moraneggAuthorUnsubmitted
Not Done
Inline Actions

We do not at the moment. Only master.

With this specs we are introducing the concept of release to a deposit.
Only deposits with certain metadata will have another branch for the release.

@ardumont can you comment about package manager?

moranegg: We do not at the moment. Only master. With this specs we are introducing the concept of…
ardumontUnsubmitted
Not Done
Inline Actions

Are the branches actually optional?

Good catch.
No, the snapshot branch is not optional.
There is at least one targetting the revision (the one targetting the tarball's uncompressed root directory).

Don't we always have at least one release here?

In the current state, we don't have release yet, only 1 revision.
That's part of the specification amending morane is trying to push here.
My understanding is that new release is optional, depending on the metadata received from the clients (hal, etc...).

@ardumont can you comment about package manager?

We plan to refactor the deposit loader according to the package manager loader indeed.
For the branch, we chose "master" at the time. But indeed, most of the other use HEAD (which might have been decided after the deposit, don't remember the details exactly).

We can change it in the spec and in the implementation.
But i'm (always) wondering about migration when we discuss such things...
Do we want to update the old swh-ids? (that might be painful communication wise)

ardumont: > Are the branches actually optional? Good catch. No, the snapshot branch is not optional.
| | branch (optional): tag to release |
ardumontUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

Those no longer exists in swh model, i think that should go away.
We are using snapshot now that you already mentioned.

ardumont: Those no longer exists in swh model, i think that should go away. We are using snapshot now…
moraneggAuthorUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

occurrence isn't a branch in a snapshot?
and occurrence history is obsolete then?

moranegg: `occurrence` isn't a branch in a snapshot? and `occurrence history` is obsolete then?
ardumontUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

Yes, obsolete.
They were replaced by snapshot.

origin -> origin-visit -> snapshot -> {revision, release}

ardumont: Yes, obsolete. They were replaced by snapshot. origin -> origin-visit -> snapshot -> {revision…
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|release | synthetic_release created from metadata|
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|revision | synthetic_revision (tarball) |
ardumontUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

why do use _ here?

ardumont: why do use `_` here?
moraneggAuthorUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

this is the way it was, don't mind deleting the _

moranegg: this is the way it was, don't mind deleting the `_`
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|directory | upper level of the uncompressed archive|
zackUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

I see what you mean here, and I agree with the arrangement. But the description of these two can probably be simpler, how about:

  • revision: synthetic revision pointing to the expanded submitted tarball
  • directory: root directory of the expanded submitted tarball
zack: I see what you mean here, and I agree with the arrangement. But the description of these two…
moraneggAuthorUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

ack.

moranegg: ack.
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------------+
Origin artifact
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
An origin using the url in the deposited metadata is created.
The current deposit and future deposits with the same url or external_id
zackUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

active voice is generally preferable to passive voice (this is a general remark that applies to most of the paragraphs in the spec)

zack: active voice is generally preferable to passive voice (this is a general remark that applies to…
moraneggAuthorUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

Can you show me an example, I tried to avoid using We like "We create an origin from the url used in the metadata".
But I can change everything to active with we.

moranegg: Can you show me an example, I tried to avoid using `We` like "We create an origin from the url…
zackUnsubmitted
Not Done
Inline Actions

I'm letting this one go for now. The style change will require quite some effort, and it's more important to land the spec than block on this.

zack: I'm letting this one go for now. The style change will require quite some effort, and it's more…
will be associated with this origin.
.. code-block:: json
{
"id": 89283768,
"origin_visits_url": "/api/1/origin/89283768/visits/",
"type": "deposit",
"url": "https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02140606"
}
Visits
~~~~~~~
Each push of the same origin or external_id will generate a visit of the origin.
Here in the example below, two snapshots are identified by two different visits.
.. code-block:: json
[
{
"date": "2019-06-03T09:28:10.223007+00:00",
"origin": 89283768,
"origin_visit_url": "/api/1/origin/89283768/visit/2/",
"snapshot": "a3773941561cc557853898773a19c07cfe2efc5a",
"snapshot_url": "/api/1/snapshot/a3773941561cc557853898773a19c07cfe2efc5a/",
"status": "full",
"type": "deposit",
"visit": 2
},
{
"date": "2019-05-27T12:23:31.037273+00:00",
"origin": 89283768,
"origin_visit_url": "/api/1/origin/89283768/visit/1/",
"snapshot": "43fdb8291f1bf6962211c370e394f6abb1cbe01d",
"snapshot_url": "/api/1/snapshot/43fdb8291f1bf6962211c370e394f6abb1cbe01d/",
"status": "full",
"type": "deposit",
"visit": 1
}
]
Snapshot artifact
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The snapshot represents one deposit push.
.. code-block:: json
{
"branches": {
"master": {
"target": "396b1ff29f7c75a0a3cc36f30e24ff7bae70bb52",
"target_type": "revision",
"target_url": "/api/1/revision/396b1ff29f7c75a0a3cc36f30e24ff7bae70bb52/"
}
},
"id": "a3773941561cc557853898773a19c07cfe2efc5a",
"next_branch": null
}
ardumontUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

It's not exactly clear to me.
What part generates those nice json output?

Is this for information purposes?
If so, that should be mentioned somewhere i think to avoid confusing people reading the document.

ardumont: It's not exactly clear to me. What part generates those nice json output? Is this for…
moraneggAuthorUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

This is the api output, I imagine you know.
Which is the json representation of the artifact.
I can do a table with columns, but I find this output clear.

or maybe when adding the artifact name it is clearer:

snapshot:  {
      "branches": {
          "master": {
              "target": "396b1ff29f7c75a0a3cc36f30e24ff7bae70bb52",
              "target_type": "revision",
              "target_url": "/api/1/revision/396b1ff29f7c75a0a3cc36f30e24ff7bae70bb52/"
          }
      },
      "id": "a3773941561cc557853898773a19c07cfe2efc5a",
      "next_branch": null
  }

I've use this schema on all api artifacts, can you say if this works?

moranegg: This is the api output, I imagine you know. Which is the json representation of the artifact. I…
ardumontUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

This is the api output, I imagine you know.

Yes, i just realized that's the main api indeed.

I've use this schema on all api artifacts, can you say if this works?

The description works.

ardumont: > This is the api output, I imagine you know. Yes, i just realized that's the main api indeed.
Release artifact
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We will identify a deposit of a release with
moraneggAuthorUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

The archive is deposited with a set of descriptive metadata, in the CodeMeta vocabulary.
The following CodeMeta terms implies that the artifact is a release:

moranegg: The archive is deposited with a set of descriptive metadata, in the CodeMeta vocabulary. The…
the following metadata:
- `releaseNotes`
- `softwareVersion`
If present, a release artifact will be created with the mapping below:
+------------------+-----------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
|SWH release field | Description | Metadata term | Fallback value |
+==================+===================================+================+================+
|target | revision containing all metadata |X |X |
+------------------+-----------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
|target_type | revision |X |X |
+------------------+-----------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
|name | release or tag name (mandatory) | softwareVersion| X |
+------------------+-----------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
|message | message associated with release | releaseNotes | X |
+------------------+-----------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
|date | release date = publication date | datePublished |deposit_date |
+------------------+-----------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
|author | deposit client | author | client |
ardumontUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

Maybe modify the column metadata term's title to metadata term (source).
That explicits the source, it's not immediately clear given the current order of columns.

ardumont: Maybe modify the column metadata term's title to `metadata term (source)`. That explicits the…
moraneggAuthorUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

how about, specifying above from where we get the metadata and here change to CodeMeta term

moranegg: how about, specifying above from where we get the metadata and here change to `CodeMeta term`
ardumontUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

works for me ;)

Note that all tables are a bit misaligned.
To align it properly, i'm letting emacs' org-mode feature do it
(using <TAB> key within the table and the alignment automagically sets itself correctly)

ardumont: works for me ;) Note that all tables are a bit misaligned. To align it properly, i'm letting…
moraneggAuthorUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

it's very strange, I'm using Atom and not Emacs and I've openned the file in Emacs and it is misaligned.
If I correct it and go back to Atom it is broken again in Atom..

moranegg: it's very strange, I'm using `Atom` and not `Emacs` and I've openned the file in `Emacs` and it…
+------------------+-----------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
.. code-block:: json
{
"author": {
"email": "hal@ccsd.cnrs.fr",
"fullname": "HAL <phal@ccsd.cnrs.fr>",
"id": x,
"name": "HAL"
},
"author_url": "/api/1/person/x/",
"date": "2019-05-27T16:28:33+02:00",
"id": "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa",
ardumontUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

Maybe take a real id (that's a hash as well).
Because otherwise, it's not consistent with other identifiers mentions elsewhere (just below for example).

ardumont: Maybe take a real id (that's a hash as well). Because otherwise, it's not consistent with other…
zackUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

Seconded.

zack: Seconded.
moraneggAuthorUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

ack.

moranegg: ack.
"message": "AffectationRO Version 1.1 - added new feature\n",
"name": "1.1",
"synthetic": true,
"target": "396b1ff29f7c75a0a3cc36f30e24ff7bae70bb52",
"target_type": "revision",
"target_url": "/api/1/revision/396b1ff29f7c75a0a3cc36f30e24ff7bae70bb52/"
}
::
origin | https://hal.inria.fr/hal-id | Revision artifact
------------------------------------|----------------------------------------| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
origin_visit | 1 :reception_date | A ``synthetic`` revision is created because the deposit is not a commit and
ardumontUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

The sentence sounds a bit weird to my ears.
Maybe change this to: "the deposit revision is not a commit."

I think there is no need to mention swh-loader-tar again.
You mentioned it earlier in the documentation.

Also, that will change soon (thus this would need update everywhere it's mentioned, better keep it only once ;).

ardumont: The sentence sounds a bit weird to my ears. Maybe change this to: "the deposit `revision` is…
moraneggAuthorUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

good thinking! and you are right... it's not very readable.
Going for:

the deposit revision is not a commit, therefore the revision created is a `synthetic` revision.

moranegg: good thinking! and you are right... it's not very readable. Going for: > the deposit revision…
origin_metadata | aggregated metadata | is created by the ``swh-loader-tar`` module.
ardumontUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

I tend to try and shorten sentences where i can.
I'd go for a simpler:

The deposit revision is synthetically created.

And then letting the readers understand the synthetic: True on their own.

ardumont: I tend to try and shorten sentences where i can. I'd go for a simpler: ``` The deposit…
zackUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

Just remove this sentence. We have already said it's going to be a synthetic revision above, no need to further expand on the matter, IMO.

zack: Just remove this sentence. We have already said it's going to be a synthetic revision above, no…
moraneggAuthorUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

sure.

moranegg: sure.
occurrence &amp; occurrence_history | branch: client's version n° (e.g hal) |
revision | synthetic_revision (tarball) | The metadata sent with the deposit will be included in the revision and will
directory | upper level of the uncompressed archive| affect the hash computation, thus resulting in a unique identifier.
This way, by depositing the same content with different metadata will be two
different revisions in the archive.
.. code-block:: json
{
"author": {
"email": "robot@softwareheritage.org",
ardumontUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

That's a judgment call, i'm not sure we want to add that here.

Also i'd remove this and amend the chapter when legacy software will actually happen.

ardumont: That's a judgment call, i'm not sure we want to add that here. Also i'd remove this and amend…
zackUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

Agreed. Just remove the above paragraph; the subsequent (factual) paragraph is all we need in a spec.

zack: Agreed. Just remove the above paragraph; the subsequent (factual) paragraph is all we need in a…
moraneggAuthorUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

Ok. You should know it is really complicating things and I'm pulling my hair on the Legacy Software.
Maybe that's why I've written it ;-)

moranegg: Ok. You should know it is really complicating things and I'm pulling my hair on the Legacy…
"fullname": "Software Heritage",
"id": 18233048,
"name": "Software Heritage"
},
"author_url": "/api/1/person/18233048/",
"committer": {
zackUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

I don't understand what "dates in a deposit" mean. Are these fields that are available via SWORD? if so, we should add a sentence specifying that this column should be interpreted in that context.

zack: I don't understand what "dates in a deposit" mean. Are these fields that are available via…
moraneggAuthorUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

dates in a deposit can be found via SWORD in the header or in the xml metadata.
for example the first two dates are from the SWORD protocol and result in fields in our DB.
The two other dates are sent in the metadata, but are not mandatory.

moranegg: dates in a deposit can be found via SWORD in the header or in the xml metadata. for example the…
"email": "robot@softwareheritage.org",
"fullname": "Software Heritage",
zackUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

typo: "recieved"

zack: typo: "recieved"
moraneggAuthorUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

ack.

moranegg: ack.
"id": 18233048,
"name": "Software Heritage"
},
"committer_date": "2019-05-27T16:28:33+02:00",
moraneggAuthorUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

The distinction between the comitter_date and the date for a deposit should be specified and documented better.
After high level decisions on the legacy software archival.
@rdicosmo

Here the date is committer_date populated from deposit with CodeMeta term publicationDate

moranegg: The distinction between the comitter_date and the date for a deposit should be specified and…
"committer_url": "/api/1/person/18233048/",
"date": "2012-01-01T00:00:00+00:00",
moraneggAuthorUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

Here the date is the date (aka. author_date) populated from a deposit with CodeMeta term creationDate.

This is the date used by @grouss.

moranegg: Here the date is the `date` (aka. `author_date`) populated from a deposit with CodeMeta term…
"directory": "fb13b51abbcfd13de85d9ba8d070a23679576cd7",
"directory_url": "/api/1/directory/fb13b51abbcfd13de85d9ba8d070a23679576cd7/",
"history_url": "/api/1/revision/396b1ff29f7c75a0a3cc36f30e24ff7bae70bb52/log/",
zackUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

typo "targetting"

zack: typo "targetting"
moraneggAuthorUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

ack.

moranegg: ack.
"id": "396b1ff29f7c75a0a3cc36f30e24ff7bae70bb52",
"merge": false,
"message": "hal: Deposit 282 in collection hal",
"metadata": {
"@xmlns": "http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom",
"@xmlns:codemeta": "https://doi.org/10.5063/SCHEMA/CODEMETA-2.0",
"author": {
"email": "hal@ccsd.cnrs.fr",
"name": "HAL"
},
"client": "hal",
"codemeta:applicationCategory": "info",
"codemeta:author": {
"codemeta:name": "Morane Gruenpeter"
},
"codemeta:codeRepository": "www.code-repository.com",
"codemeta:contributor": "Morane Gruenpeter",
"codemeta:dateCreated": "2012",
ardumontUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

committer

ardumont: `committer`
"codemeta:datePublished": "2019-05-27T16:28:33+02:00",
"codemeta:description": "description\\_en test v2",
"codemeta:developmentStatus": "Inactif",
"codemeta:keywords": "mot_cle_en,mot_cle_2_en,mot_cle_fr",
"codemeta:license": [
{
"codemeta:name": "MIT License"
},
{
"codemeta:name": "CeCILL Free Software License Agreement v1.1"
}
],
"codemeta:name": "Test\\_20190527\\_01",
"codemeta:operatingSystem": "OS",
"codemeta:programmingLanguage": "Java",
"codemeta:referencePublication": null,
"codemeta:relatedLink": null,
"codemeta:releaseNotes": "releaseNote",
"codemeta:runtimePlatform": "outil",
"codemeta:softwareVersion": "1.0.1",
"codemeta:url": "https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02140606",
"codemeta:version": "2",
"external_identifier": "hal-02140606",
"id": "hal-02140606",
"original_artifact": [
{
"archive_type": "zip",
"blake2s256": "96be3ddedfcee9669ad9c42b0bb3a706daf23824d04311c63505a4d8db02df00",
"length": 193072,
"name": "archive.zip",
"sha1": "5b6ecc9d5bb113ff69fc275dcc9b0d993a8194f1",
"sha1_git": "bd10e4d3ede17162692d7e211e08e87e67994488",
"sha256": "3e2ce93384251ce6d6da7b8f2a061a8ebdaf8a28b8d8513223ca79ded8a10948"
}
]
},
"parents": [
{
"id": "a9fdc3937d2b704b915852a64de2ab1b4b481003",
"url": "/api/1/revision/a9fdc3937d2b704b915852a64de2ab1b4b481003/"
}
],
"synthetic": true,
"type": "tar",
"url": "/api/1/revision/396b1ff29f7c75a0a3cc36f30e24ff7bae70bb52/"
}
Directory artifact
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The directory artifact is the actual content deposited.
ardumontUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

archive(s)' raw content deposited.

ardumont: `archive(s)' raw content` deposited.
zackUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

"Artifacts creation" should be enough here, SWH is kinda implicit anyway.

zack: "Artifacts creation" should be enough here, SWH is kinda implicit anyway.
moraneggAuthorUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

sure.

moranegg: sure.
.. code-block:: json
[
{
"dir_id": "fb13b51abbcfd13de85d9ba8d070a23679576cd7",
"length": null,
"name": "AffectationRO",
"perms": 16384,
"target": "fbc418f9ac2c39e8566b04da5dc24b14e65b23b1",
"target_url": "/api/1/directory/fbc418f9ac2c39e8566b04da5dc24b14e65b23b1/",
"type": "dir"
}
]
Questions raised concerning loading Questions raised concerning loading
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- A deposit has one origin, yet an origin can have multiple deposits? - A deposit has one origin, yet an origin can have multiple deposits?
No, an origin can have multiple requests for the same deposit. Which No, an origin can have multiple requests for the same deposit. Which
should end up in one single deposit (when the client pushes its final should end up in one single deposit (when the client pushes its final
Show All 35 Lines
:: ::
+ same origin + same origin
+ new revision + new revision
+ new directory + new directory
Technical details
-----------------
Requirements
~~~~~~~~~~~~
* one dedicated database to store the deposit's state - swh-deposit
* one dedicated temporary objstorage to store archives before loading
* one client to test the communication with SWORD protocol
Deposit reception schema
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* SWORD imposes the use of basic authentication, so we need a way to
authenticate client. Also, a client can access collections:
**deposit\_client** table: - id (bigint): Client's identifier - username
(str): Client's username - password (pass): Client's crypted password -
collections ([id]): List of collections the client can access
* Collections group deposits together:
**deposit\_collection** table: - id (bigint): Collection's identifier - name
(str): Collection's human readable name
* A deposit is the main object the repository is all about:
**deposit** table:
* id (bigint): deposit's identifier
* reception\_date (date): First deposit's reception date
* complete\_data (date): Date when the deposit is deemed complete and ready
for loading
* collection (id): The collection the deposit belongs to
* external id (text): client's internal identifier (e.g hal's id, etc...).
* client\_id (id) : Client which did the deposit
* swh\_id (str) : swh identifier result once the loading is complete
* status (enum): The deposit's current status
- As mentioned, a deposit can have a status, whose possible values are:
.. code:: text
'partial', -- the deposit is new or partially received since it
-- can be done in multiple requests
'expired', -- deposit has been there too long and is now deemed
-- ready to be garbage collected
'deposited' -- deposit complete, it is ready to be checked to ensure data consistency
'verified', -- deposit is fully received, checked, and ready for loading
'loading', -- loading is ongoing on swh's side
'done', -- loading is successful
'failed' -- loading is a failure
* A deposit is stateful and can be made in multiple requests:
**deposit\_request** table:
* id (bigint): identifier
* type (id): deposit request's type (possible values: 'archive', 'metadata')
* deposit\_id (id): deposit whose request belongs to
* metadata: metadata associated to the request
* date (date): date of the requests
Information sent along a request are stored in a ``deposit_request`` row.
They can be either of type ``metadata`` (atom entry, multipart's atom entry
part) or of type ``archive`` (binary upload, multipart's binary upload part).
When the deposit is complete (status ``deposited``), those ``metadata`` and
``archive`` deposit requests will be read and aggregated. They will then be
sent as parameters to the loading routine.
During loading, some of those metadata are kept in the ``origin_metadata``
table and some other are stored in the ``revision`` table (see `metadata
loading <#metadata-loading>`__).
The only update actions occurring on the deposit table are in regards of: -
status changing: - ``partial`` -> {``expired``/``deposited``}, -
``deposited`` -> {``rejected``/``verified``}, - ``verified`` -> ``loading`` -
``loading`` -> {``done``/``failed``} - ``complete_date`` when the deposit is
finalized (when the status is changed to ``deposited``) - ``swh-id`` is
populated once we have the loading result
SWH Identifier returned
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
::
The synthetic revision id
e.g.: swh:1:rev:47dc6b4636c7f6cba0df83e3d5490bf4334d987e
Scheduling loading Scheduling loading
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All ``archive`` and ``metadata`` deposit requests should be aggregated before All ``archive`` and ``metadata`` deposit requests should be aggregated before
loading. loading.
The loading should be scheduled via the scheduler's api. The loading should be scheduled via the scheduler's api.
Only ``deposited`` deposit are concerned by the loading. Only ``deposited`` deposit are concerned by the loading.
When the loading is done and successful, the deposit entry is updated: - When the loading is done and successful, the deposit entry is updated:
``status`` is updated to ``done`` - ``swh-id`` is populated with the resulting
hash (cf. `swh identifier <#swh-identifier-returned>`__) - ``complete_date`` is
updated to the loading's finished time
When the loading is failed, the deposit entry is updated: - ``status`` is - ``status`` is updated to ``done``
updated to ``failed`` - ``swh-id`` and ``complete_data`` remains as is - ``swh-id`` is populated with the resulting hash
zackUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

don't call this "hash", it's a "Software Heritage Peristent Identifier" (or SWH PID for short), and you can link that text to the PID doc instead of adding a cf. parenthesis

zack: don't call this "hash", it's a "Software Heritage Peristent Identifier" (or SWH PID for short)…
moraneggAuthorUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

good call.

moranegg: good call.
(cf. `swh identifier <#swh-identifier-returned>`__)
- ``complete_date`` is updated to the loading's finished time
When the loading has failed, the deposit entry is updated:
- ``status`` is updated to ``failed``
- ``swh-id`` and ``complete_data`` remains as is
*Note:* As a further improvement, we may prefer having a retry policy with *Note:* As a further improvement, we may prefer having a retry policy with
graceful delays for further scheduling. graceful delays for further scheduling.
Metadata loading Metadata loading
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- the metadata received with the deposit should be kept in the - the metadata received with the deposit are also kept in the
``origin_metadata`` table before translation as part of the loading process ``origin_metadata`` table before translation as part of the loading process
and an indexation process should be scheduled. and an indexation process should be scheduled.
- provider\_id and tool\_id are resolved by the prepare\_metadata method in the - provider\_id and tool\_id are resolved by the prepare\_metadata method in the
loader-core loader-core
- the origin\_metadata entry is sent to storage by the send\_origin\_metadata - the origin\_metadata entry is sent to storage by the send\_origin\_metadata
in the loader-core in the loader-core
Show All 11 Lines
About · Developer information · Legal