Change Details

I don't know what such SWHID would mean but technically it's a valid one (as far as i understood the grammar [1]) Nonetheless, we currently have a technical restriction when writing extrinsic metadata though. We can only have one snapshot reference possible there... Let's discuss what to do ;) This currently decides to log and returns a bad request for such case. That's the gist of the discussion, is that reasonable? If not, what to do instead? [1] https://docs.softwareheritage.org/devel/swh-model/persistent-identifiers.html#syntax Related to T2537 D4475

I don't know what such SWHID would mean but technically it's a valid one (as far as i understood the grammar [1]) Nonetheless, we currently have a technical restriction when writing extrinsic metadata though. We can only have one snapshot reference possible there... Let's discuss what to do then ;) In this diff, I currently propose to log and return a bad request for such case. That's the gist of the discussion, is that reasonable? If not, what to do instead? [1] https://docs.softwareheritage.org/devel/swh-model/persistent-identifiers.html#syntax Related to T2537 D4475

I don't know what such SWHID would mean but technically it's a valid one (as far as i understood the grammar [1]) Nonetheless, we currently have a technical restriction when writing extrinsic metadata though. We can only have one snapshot reference possible there... Let's discuss what to do then ;) ThisIn this diff, I currently decidespropose to log and returns a bad request for such case. That's the gist of the discussion, is that reasonable? If not, what to do instead? [1] https://docs.softwareheritage.org/devel/swh-model/persistent-identifiers.html#syntax Related to T2537 D4475