Thanks to all of you for this dicussion and proposals.

Great. In addition to the content of the free form field, the standard answer should contain proper boilerplate reminding what is expected in a Save Code Now request, along the lines of what is written in the "Help" tab of https://archive.softwareheritage.org/save/

On a related note, it may be useful to regularly report requests that did not complete (either as success or failure) in a reasonable amount of time after being scheduled.

In T2912#63245, @vsellier wrote:

This kind of journal client will be necessary in any case if we want to extend the usage of the counters for other perimeters (metadata count, origin per forge, ...)

In T3084#63278, @ardumont wrote:

Pushed, packaged, deployed.

scheduler runner continues happily to schedule existing tasks and some new task with priority

Apr 15 13:12:51 saatchi swh[234257]: INFO:swh.scheduler.celery_backend.runner:Grabbed 2084 tasks load-git
Apr 15 13:12:54 saatchi swh[234257]: INFO:swh.scheduler.cli.admin.runner:Scheduled 4128 tasks
Apr 15 13:14:06 saatchi swh[234257]: INFO:swh.scheduler.celery_backend.runner:Grabbed 1 tasks load-pypi
Apr 15 13:14:06 saatchi swh[234257]: INFO:swh.scheduler.celery_backend.runner:Grabbed 1 tasks load-git (priority)
...

That task got done almost immediately...
So there you go ;)

In T2912#63242, @vsellier wrote:

Staging webapp[1] and webapp1 on production [2] are now configured to use swh-counters to display the historical values and the live object counts.

Great news :-)

In D267#84923, @thierry-martinez wrote:

What would left to do to make this lister work? It seems already in good state, and it would be useful to index gforge.inria.fr since it will be closed soon (https://gforge.inria.fr/forum/forum.php?forum_id=11543). For the gforge.inria.fr case specifically, it is worth noticing that project creation is closed already, so a one-shot listing could be an option if it is lighter to set up: I wrote a small script to do that, but after a few requests to https://archive.softwareheritage.org/save/, requests are throttled. I would be happy to send you a listing of the public projects hosted on gforge.inria.fr if it could help.

Ok, this is converging with the discussion in T3234: we fully agree that having proper errors reported to the user is the way to go, so let's forget about the "sanitization" approach.

In T3234#63111, @anlambert wrote:

Ok, so no need to change the specification document for SWHIDs.

@vlorentz , @anlambert : thanks for progressing the discussion on this issue.
After mulling over your inputs, here is my current understanding:

I wonder if this is not overkill: SWHID may evolve in the future, and maintaining two implementations (one of them in JS!) may be source of headaches down the line.
A simple "sanitization" phase in the frontend catching the most common issues (trailing slashes, leading or trailing tabs or spaces, etc.) would probably be enough for our purpose.

As a compromise, we could accept this trailing slash, but show a warning on the interface and/or codify in the SWHID specification an exhaustive list of "fixes" that user interfaces can/should do.

There are already many URLs in the open, so even if we remove the trailing slash now, that does not solve the problem.

Ok, this is the way we'll go, merging in T3196 that is now obsolete.

Let me make explicit a key requirement that apparently is not as obvious as I thought: the improvement we look for must not change the current UI in any way. Remember that we have tutorials, papers, instructions all over the place with the current UI, and many active users of the current UI, including journals that have trained their vendors about it, and are quite happy: it is too late (and counterproductive) to make changes now. Please do not debate this point: it is a firm decision.

After recent exchanges with @hboutemy and Charles Sabourdin, here is a clarification of the scope of this task.
We need a Maven repository lister that addresses the following issues:

Let's organise a call next week to explore the options, including the new opportunities of testing that emerged recently.

Did you consider PMem (and other configurations for Intel Optane memory) in your discussion? It offers a very interesting price/performance ratio.
There are machines on Grid5000 available to test this technology if needed.

@hboutemy : I wonder if you are aware that we have now in place a grant program that allows to fund development of listers like this one.
All the information is available at https://www.softwareheritage.org/grants and you can mail me for more info if needed.

Work is in progress with the first academic ambassador.