All instances listed in this task have been added, so I'm closing this. Other instances can be added in the future, submitting matching task for tracking reasons as needed.

LGTM! just added a few minor comments that can be taken care of before landing

LGTM in general.

I've completed a bunch of these in 86f8b213e23970feb9f9bda8ab87fc7d6851abf0

Closing as long-stale. Further investigation should be done when we restart periodic GNU release ingestion.

Thanks, this would be an important new feature. Some comments/random thoughts below.

go for the internet archive version, and i think the points you have are enough, even if there are bumps it's much better than what we currently have !

good catch!, a broken symlink would be preferable over omitting the entry

In T2771#53972, @seirl wrote:

We also need to discuss what exactly we put in cache/. I thought about symlinks to archive/ and meta/, what do you think? Removing the symlinks also means removing the data from the cache.

New proposal (lather, rinse, repeat…) based on an idea from @seirl:

Sounds good to me.

Oh, good point about the SWHIDs being already available as Permalinks.
I don't know exactly what you mean with "metadata associated to a SWH object", but I'm certainly in favor of reducing information duplication.

as discussed on IRC, if the other *_exists() methods have unit tests, please add one also for this new method before landing

@vlorentz: can we have the logs please?
Run mount with the "--foreground" option and/or check your user log in "journalctl --user".
TIA

The difficulty with this one is deciding when to re-query the backend to check if there are new visits. Doing it too often will make the cache of visit metadata useless. Doing it too seldomly will make you miss new visits. Either way, we probably need to add a timestamp somewhere in the cache to note down when the metadata have been fetched last (!= most recent visit timestamp).

nice catch, thanks @vlorentz.

I'm accepting this, but please fix the various minor issues I've pointed out before landing.

Please first file a task about this issue and reference it from the comment in the code, for ease of tracking.

(but please change the default indent level as suggested before landing)