Rebase on latest master

Rebase on latest master

Rebase on latest master

I did not read the diff. But, first thanks for reworking the tests (i'll be
able to drop old code now ;).

cool ;)

Thanks. Yes, we don't have that because we have many repositories (and quite a lot of setup-ish files: mypy.ini, pytest.ini, tox.ini, requirements*...) already.

I messed with arc

ok, but should check whether some other packages that uses this pytest plugin can be impacted.

Duplicate of D3518

even better ;)

ohh... it's unreadable, i'll target the diff instead... (sorry)

Yes sure, i meant it from:

"id": hash_to_bytes(expected_snapshot_id),

to:

"id: hash_to_bytes("d35668e02e2ba4321dc951cd308cf883786f918a"),

(and drop expected_snapshot_id if it's no longer used which i think it's the case now).

In D3516#86529, @douardda wrote:

In D3516#86518, @ardumont wrote:

I'm not sure we still need the hex form now.

ok nonetheless ;)

It's easier to read :-)

For the sake of checking if my comment makes sense (i think it does heh).
(I did a similar remark in D3516, can you please have a look?)

I'm not sure we still need the hex form now.

Otherwise, i think it's fine ;)
And according to the plan, the next step is to land it.

That needs a rebase btw

It's because D3514 btw
(we are current implicitely pulling the optional swh.journal dependency in the loader-core tests only within the debian build somehow)

to the benefit of D3515

Now I realize the problem is more upstream than here though (otherwise, i would need to duplicate this on all clients).
The storage should only expose a fixture which should not pull optional dependencies.

(I need to check why the debian package fails but from tox's point of view, everything is fine ;)

Make sure we limit the size of the list to 2 elements so unpacking always work
even if the sample data changes

Fix passing along dict to skipped_content_add by mistake

correctness, then refactor please @ardu ;)

oh yeah, symlink you don't like setuptools-scm

Rebase on latest master and make the build pass

review/land first D3503 (so the check-snapshot implementation is complete, it checks up to the contents). It's not per say a blocker but that'd be more consistent.
Then release new loader-core.

Rework commit message

looks ok, but I find it temptating to factorize(!) the missing objects looking pattern (not asked right now!).

Rework commit message and README sentence

• Adapt according to review (rename env variables to SWH_CASSANDRA_* prefix)
• Rework commit message to align with the better description message

Thanks for this change!

I'm very fine with landing a reasonably consistent and stable baseline any time you want.

Rework commit message and improve documentation sentence