yes

Gruenpeter, Morane, Di Cosmo, Roberto, Koers, Hylke, Herterich, Patricia, Hooft, Rob, Parland-von Essen, Jessica, Tana, Jonas, Aalto, Tero, & Jones, Sarah. (2020). M2.15 Assessment report on 'FAIRness of software' (1.1). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5472911

This still needs @rdicosmo's review.
At the moment I tend to say that EU projects reports are not adapted to the publication page, but where should this information go in a persistent way?

This task seems rich with information. Is this adapted for a guide or tutorial?
I'm creating a task for a tutorial about the webhook following Ambassador Pierre Poulain suggestion.

thanks @olasd for persevering, is there an ETA for the relaunch from October 21st?

@vlorentz: I believe this is currently the case in the deposit docs, can you confirm?

@anlambert: are you able to modify a website redirection?
The redirection for this url: https://softwareheritage.org/swhid
should be: https://docs.softwareheritage.org/devel/swh-model/persistent-identifiers.html

SWHAP is dealing with this by having a branch named source code.
I'm considering this task as resolved.

I believe this is done: https://archive.softwareheritage.org/browse/search/?q=gitlab.lip6.fr&visit_type=git&with_content=true&with_visit=true
@ardumont: can you confirm?

This was done by Elisabetta: https://swh.stories.k2.services/inria/Q828742
Brava!

do you have the pdf for this, I'm was searching for a document I have seen in the past.

Hello Marla,

order sounds best. Do you want to do it?

order sounds best. Do you want to do it?

Dropping --tablesample 1 helped...

yeah, well, it does help to remove the echo in front of the instruction...

but if you change it, then pagination is unusable because it's offset-based.

num num num... i did not mean to push that one.
Please, tell me if i need to revert it...

Great, thanks!

Does it seem like we're going to use these arguments in another caller of grab_next_visits?

That's a good question. I think not.

Maybe we would, actually. For instance, it might make sense to use these options to give different scheduling weights for github/gitlab/... origins in the recurrent visit scheduler.

Build is green

Fix tests

Build has FAILED

Drop --lister-uuid flag to the benefit of using --lister-name and --lister-instance-name

Either way, the uuid argument in the cli endpoint should go away!

In D8922#231994, @ardumont wrote:

Does it seem like we're going to use these arguments in another caller of grab_next_visits?

That's a good question. I think not.

Does it seem like we're going to use these arguments in another caller of grab_next_visits?

So, instead of adding more stuff to the grab_next_visits signature, I would have suggested just calling lister_get in swh/scheduler/cli/origin.py to get the lister uuid, and replacing the --lister-uuid CLI argument with --lister-name and --lister-instance-name (so, only changing the CLI function).

LGTM, added a couple of nitpicks as inline comments.

We decided to add recurring fetches, so it will take care both of backfilling now, and visiting from time to time in the future. We're going to assume 3 months for now, as it seems reasonable to not exhaust rate limits.

LGTM, been a while since I read java code, so verbose (especially for iterations).

Build is green

Amend commit message and fix tests

LGTM, been a while since I read java code, so verbose (especially for iterations).

Build was aborted

Could you add a test checking luigi parameters are correctly passed to the subprocess.run instruction ?

Adapt according to suggestion (still trying to determine why the build fails)

To adapt according to suggestion (already on it).

In D8909#231701, @franckbret wrote:

In D8909#231631, @vlorentz wrote:

@anlambert Shouldn't this be replaced by swh auth generate-token?

@anlambert @vlorentz seems legit that anything related to auth for a cli command should be centralized in swh auth.

I can adapt to :

• make swh scanner depends on swh auth
• alias swh scanner login to one of swh auth
• add a set token command to swh auth

What do you think?

nice

ah, so it doesn't matter for other loaders. Phew!

In D8920#231860, @vlorentz wrote:

Does it mean we were silently dropping data until this? Which loaders use this?

As I mentioned on IRC, I think we should do that "join" directly in swh scheduler origin send-to-celery (and have it error out if the lister name/instance provided don't match an existing lister); using the uuid was an "easy hack" to extend the API of grab_next_visits, but using lister name/instance in the CLI interface makes more sense.