Learn more about these different git repos.
Other Git URLs
Does that make sense? Turns out it is pretty complicated to get info about CoprChroot from BuildChroot now, we need to do: CoprChrootsLogic.get_by_name_safe(bch.build.copr, bch.mock_chroot.name)
CoprChrootsLogic.get_by_name_safe(bch.build.copr, bch.mock_chroot.name)
While with the proposed fix, it would be just: build_chroot.copr_chroot And the mock_croot: build_chroot.copr_chroot.mock_chroot
build_chroot.copr_chroot
build_chroot.copr_chroot.mock_chroot
It makes sense, but it is redundant information. I think that space for storing it is no factor here, but the worst-case scenario is the possibility of having a bug that stores incompatible pair of build_chroot.build_id and build_chroot.copr_chroot. Which is IMHO very unlikely, so I don't see a problem with this RFE.
build_chroot.build_id
My question is though, I this very troubling for us? We seem to use CoprChrootsLogic.get_by_name_safe only in three places in the whole codebase.
CoprChrootsLogic.get_by_name_safe
My question is though, I this very troubling for us?
It is less effective (some ugly sql query instead of quick search by foreign key).
It is hard to read the data flow/db desing. We spent about hour deciphering the proper way to get CoprChroot info from BuildChroot (while intuitively it should be completely trivial).
That said, this doesn't have priority - but instead of wasting another hour of our lives, it would be nice to invest it into fix instead.
Ok, as I said, I see no problem with this, so whoever is interested in implementing it, go for it :-)
Metadata Update from @schlupov: - Issue assigned to schlupov
Metadata Update from @praiskup: - Issue assigned to praiskup (was: schlupov)
Commit ac6c850 fixes this issue
Login to comment on this ticket.