review comments

snapshot branch updates

In D7980#207464, @vlorentz wrote:

Why should this be implemented by the API (as opposed to UIs)?

In D7980#207464, @vlorentz wrote:

Why should this be impleme

In D7980#207450, @jayeshv wrote:

In D7980#207423, @anlambert wrote:

I think it would be better to handle that process directly in the Archive.get_origin function, adding an utility function for a small set of instructions seems a bit overkill.

This is how it is done in swh-web for instance (with some extra processing that should not be needed for the graphql case).

This makes me think that we should start moving storage object conversion code out of swh-web as basically you will end up re-implementing
a lot of features we already have. I think adding a new storage proxy that will do object conversion to JSON on the fly while keeping the storage
API could be a nice solution. This is a subject we should talk about during the code review sprint of that week.

Also could you add a functional test for this ?

Thanks. I will add functional tests for this.
I agree that it is a good idea to have a shared storage proxy.
good idea that we can discuss about the shared layer in the upcoming sprint.

But I don't think adding this logic to that layer (archive layer) is a good idea at least in this case. What
I'm trying to do is to make a utility function to identify all the analogous URLs
as we define in SWH. Maybe this can be a core function as well. (I forgot to add the logic for ://" character sequencemangled into ":,
fixing it now).

I kept a separate stub in origin_node to add any specific
logic that we may have to add for just origin URLs (on top of analogous URLs).

In D7980#207423, @anlambert wrote:

I think it would be better to handle that process directly in the Archive.get_origin function, adding an utility function for a small set of instructions seems a bit overkill.

This is how it is done in swh-web for instance (with some extra processing that should not be needed for the graphql case).

This makes me think that we should start moving storage object conversion code out of swh-web as basically you will end up re-implementing
a lot of features we already have. I think adding a new storage proxy that will do object conversion to JSON on the fly while keeping the storage
API could be a nice solution. This is a subject we should talk about during the code review sprint of that week.

Also could you add a functional test for this ?

Review change

remove wrong file

In D7969#207106, @vlorentz wrote:

why percent-substitution instead of f-strings in new tests? is it in preparation for T4306?

Remove unnecessary comment

Extra test for item cursor

Remove unnecessary comments

Type hint update

review comments

format changes

Rebase and Review changes

Review comments

update the commit mesage