Recipe requires sourcepackagename before upload

I don't really see why that is a bad thing.

As the mocked up UI seems to involve treating the recipe as an annotation to the 'base' branch of the recipe (hmm... that's an idea that sets off some interesting thoughts...), won't we know there's already a sourcepackagename?

(There's the separate issue that you can't create a sourcepackagename by pushing a branch, but we'll need to fix that sooner or later).

It may not be a bad thing to create the sourcepackagename record when the recipe is created, but I can imagine situations where the recipe fails, nothing is ever uploaded and so no sourcepackage ever exists in the DB with that name.

Whereas it does seem possible to defer the creation of the spn record to the usual upload (ie. after the recipe is successful and the source uploaded), by storing a string nascent sourcepackagename on the recipe/build. But maybe it's a non-issue.

As I said on the phone, I don't particularly understand what SourcePackageName is for at all :-)

Any upload to any PPA creates a SPN row -- even a source that never builds, I presume -- so I don't think that one more way of doing this is a big deal.

Sourcepackagename is for database normalisation. I don't think you want the same string repeated on hundreds of package version records. ;)

I talked to Michael N and we agree that we can just traverse through a string package name for recipes, they won't be as prevalent as sourcepackagerelease.

On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Julian Edwards
<email address hidden> wrote:
> Sourcepackagename is for database normalisation.  I don't think you want
> the same string repeated on hundreds of package version records. ;)
>
> I talked to Michael N and we agree that we can just traverse through a
> string package name for recipes, they won't be as prevalent as
> sourcepackagerelease.

Julian, I think MichaelH's point is that he doesn't see a reason why
it's bad to create the record when the SPRecipe is created.

Also, I don't think it's worth considering any updates to the SPRecipe
code until we finalise the UI and see exactly what we need for users
to be able to use it - sorry for the noise.

As far as I can see, we no longer need the source package name initially anyway - that is: (1) the source package name is no longer used in the recipe URL, (2) we no longer need to pass it as the --package option to dailydeb.

Therefore, there's no longer a good reason for requesting this (redundant) information from the user when they create a recipe (in fact, the first question from pitti during the demo was exactly that).

If it is still a db schema constraint, we should obviously change that, but in the mean time, if we are not using it, we could potentially remove it from the UI and populate it with something temporarily.

I assume eventually we should populate it *after* the source package build, perhaps being returned by the builder.

Fixed in devel 10971