Differential D7210
deposit_check: Actually store warning in deposit status detail Authored by ardumont on Feb 21 2022, 4:00 PM. Tags None Subscribers None
Details
Prior to this commit, only rejected deposit were storing problem details. Now that we Note that this also fixes the docstring of the overall class which were out of date
Diff Detail
Event TimelineComment Actions Build has FAILED Patch application report for D7210 (id=26132)Could not rebase; Attempt merge onto 40adc8c23b... Updating 40adc8c2..e338e404 Fast-forward swh/deposit/api/checks.py | 30 ++++++-- swh/deposit/api/private/deposit_check.py | 85 ++++++++++++---------- swh/deposit/tests/api/test_checks.py | 80 ++++++++++++++++++-- .../tests/api/test_deposit_private_check.py | 21 +++++- 4 files changed, 161 insertions(+), 55 deletions(-) Changes applied before testcommit e338e404731998cf75bcb1a86f74b11b6c63d976
Author: Antoine R. Dumont (@ardumont) <ardumont@softwareheritage.org>
Date: Mon Feb 21 15:56:55 2022 +0100
deposit_check: Actually store warning in deposit status detail
Prior to this commit, only reject deposit were storing the problem details. Now that we
can have warning even in case of verified deposit, we need to store that details for
post-analysis later.
Related to T3677
commit b9749edc15f90a63c12f47e022a92eecf27161e6
Author: Antoine R. Dumont (@ardumont) <ardumont@softwareheritage.org>
Date: Mon Feb 21 15:26:13 2022 +0100
api.checks: Warn when suggested fields are missing from metadata
This introduces a new check about the metadata provenance. While it's a suggested field,
it's definitely something that we want deposit clients to send us. So warn when it's not
the case. That does not reject the deposit but it's worth keeping that detail in the
backend.
Related to T3677Link to build: https://jenkins.softwareheritage.org/job/DDEP/job/tests-on-diff/708/ Comment Actions Build is green Patch application report for D7210 (id=26137)Could not rebase; Attempt merge onto 40adc8c23b... Updating 40adc8c2..edf0f7ed Fast-forward swh/deposit/api/checks.py | 30 ++++++-- swh/deposit/api/private/deposit_check.py | 85 ++++++++++++---------- swh/deposit/tests/api/test_checks.py | 80 ++++++++++++++++++-- .../tests/api/test_deposit_private_check.py | 21 +++++- swh/deposit/tests/cli/test_client.py | 22 +++++- 5 files changed, 179 insertions(+), 59 deletions(-) Changes applied before testcommit edf0f7ed8059bfddb454737b5d40b35236cb1c4c
Author: Antoine R. Dumont (@ardumont) <ardumont@softwareheritage.org>
Date: Mon Feb 21 15:56:55 2022 +0100
deposit_check: Actually store warning in deposit status detail
Prior to this commit, only reject deposit were storing the problem details. Now that we
can have warning even in case of verified deposit, we need to store that details for
post-analysis later.
Related to T3677
commit 339f7dd390ca8cbe8e79a77a1bc2e3c704d5f3f1
Author: Antoine R. Dumont (@ardumont) <ardumont@softwareheritage.org>
Date: Mon Feb 21 15:26:13 2022 +0100
api.checks: Warn when suggested fields are missing from metadata
This introduces a new check about the metadata provenance. While it's a suggested field,
it's definitely something that we want deposit clients to send us. So warn when it's not
the case. That does not reject the deposit but it's worth keeping that detail in the
backend.
Related to T3677See https://jenkins.softwareheritage.org/job/DDEP/job/tests-on-diff/710/ for more details. Comment Actions Build is green Patch application report for D7210 (id=26139)Could not rebase; Attempt merge onto 40adc8c23b... Updating 40adc8c2..62ec72f2 Fast-forward swh/deposit/api/checks.py | 30 ++++++-- swh/deposit/api/private/deposit_check.py | 84 ++++++++++++---------- swh/deposit/tests/api/test_checks.py | 80 ++++++++++++++++++--- .../tests/api/test_deposit_private_check.py | 21 +++++- swh/deposit/tests/cli/test_client.py | 22 ++++-- 5 files changed, 178 insertions(+), 59 deletions(-) Changes applied before testcommit 62ec72f2a96c4cc0f8a20c60a25dd886ca22de2f
Author: Antoine R. Dumont (@ardumont) <ardumont@softwareheritage.org>
Date: Mon Feb 21 15:56:55 2022 +0100
deposit_check: Actually store warning in deposit status detail
Prior to this commit, only rejected deposit were storing problem details. Now that we
can have warnings even in case of 'verified' deposit, we need to store that details for
post-analysis.
Note that this also fixes the docstring of the overall class which were out of date
since the beginning (duplicated from another class).
Related to T3677
commit 339f7dd390ca8cbe8e79a77a1bc2e3c704d5f3f1
Author: Antoine R. Dumont (@ardumont) <ardumont@softwareheritage.org>
Date: Mon Feb 21 15:26:13 2022 +0100
api.checks: Warn when suggested fields are missing from metadata
This introduces a new check about the metadata provenance. While it's a suggested field,
it's definitely something that we want deposit clients to send us. So warn when it's not
the case. That does not reject the deposit but it's worth keeping that detail in the
backend.
Related to T3677See https://jenkins.softwareheritage.org/job/DDEP/job/tests-on-diff/712/ for more details.
Comment Actions Build is green Patch application report for D7210 (id=26141)Could not rebase; Attempt merge onto 40adc8c23b... Updating 40adc8c2..770cc0f5 Fast-forward swh/deposit/api/checks.py | 30 ++++++-- swh/deposit/api/private/deposit_check.py | 80 ++++++++++++---------- swh/deposit/tests/api/test_checks.py | 80 +++++++++++++++++++--- .../tests/api/test_deposit_private_check.py | 21 +++++- swh/deposit/tests/cli/test_client.py | 22 ++++-- 5 files changed, 174 insertions(+), 59 deletions(-) Changes applied before testcommit 770cc0f5152d948e32f3f0cf0640f50a17626923
Author: Antoine R. Dumont (@ardumont) <ardumont@softwareheritage.org>
Date: Mon Feb 21 15:56:55 2022 +0100
deposit_check: Actually store warning in deposit status detail
Prior to this commit, only rejected deposit were storing problem details. Now that we
can have warnings even in case of 'verified' deposit, we need to store that details for
post-analysis.
Note that this also fixes the docstring of the overall class which were out of date
since the beginning (duplicated from another class).
Related to T3677
commit 339f7dd390ca8cbe8e79a77a1bc2e3c704d5f3f1
Author: Antoine R. Dumont (@ardumont) <ardumont@softwareheritage.org>
Date: Mon Feb 21 15:26:13 2022 +0100
api.checks: Warn when suggested fields are missing from metadata
This introduces a new check about the metadata provenance. While it's a suggested field,
it's definitely something that we want deposit clients to send us. So warn when it's not
the case. That does not reject the deposit but it's worth keeping that detail in the
backend.
Related to T3677See https://jenkins.softwareheritage.org/job/DDEP/job/tests-on-diff/714/ for more details. | ||||||||||||||||||||||