Project

Profile

Help

Send by e-mail

Task #3871

Task model has PK that is not consistent with the rest of the data model.

Added by jortel@redhat.com over 1 year ago. Updated 6 months ago.

Status:
MODIFIED
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
daviddavis
Category:
-
Sprint/Milestone:
3.0
Start date:
Due date:
% Done:

100%

Platform Release:
Blocks Release:
Backwards Incompatible:
No
Groomed:
No
Sprint Candidate:
No
Tags:
QA Contact:
Complexity:
Smash Test:
Verified:
No
Verification Required:
No
Sprint:
Sprint 46

Description

The Task.id is still a UUID. Consistency in a relational schema is important. We should add a Task.job_id (uuid) to correlate with rq/redis.

https://github.com/pulp/pulp/blob/master/pulpcore/pulpcore/app/models/task.py#L269

Associated revisions

Revision 06445689 View on GitHub
Added by daviddavis 10 months ago

Create a new Task field job_id to store rq job ids

fixes #3871
https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3871

Revision 06445689 View on GitHub
Added by daviddavis 10 months ago

Create a new Task field job_id to store rq job ids

fixes #3871
https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3871

History

#1 Updated by jortel@redhat.com over 1 year ago

  • Description updated (diff)

#2 Updated by daviddavis over 1 year ago

  • Tracker changed from Issue to Task
  • Sprint/Milestone set to 3.0
  • % Done set to 0

#3 Updated by bmbouter about 1 year ago

I think this is a fine idea. +1.

#4 Updated by CodeHeeler about 1 year ago

  • Assignee set to CodeHeeler

#5 Updated by CodeHeeler about 1 year ago

  • Sprint set to Sprint 44

#6 Updated by jortel@redhat.com about 1 year ago

  • Status changed from NEW to ASSIGNED

#7 Updated by jortel@redhat.com about 1 year ago

  • Tags Pulp 3 added

#8 Updated by rchan 12 months ago

  • Sprint changed from Sprint 44 to Sprint 45

#9 Updated by rchan 11 months ago

  • Sprint changed from Sprint 45 to Sprint 46

#10 Updated by daviddavis 10 months ago

  • Assignee changed from CodeHeeler to daviddavis

Should I expose job_id in the REST API? On the one hand, it shouldn't be something users need or ought to know but on the other, it might help to debug.

#11 Updated by bmbouter 10 months ago

+1 to exposing it. They may want to correlate it with a RQ monitoring system they setup separately.

#12 Updated by jortel@redhat.com 10 months ago

bmbouter wrote:

+1 to exposing it. They may want to correlate it with a RQ monitoring system they setup separately.

+1 for same ^^ reasons.

#13 Updated by daviddavis 10 months ago

  • Status changed from ASSIGNED to POST

#14 Updated by daviddavis 10 months ago

  • Status changed from POST to MODIFIED
  • % Done changed from 0 to 100

#15 Updated by bmbouter 6 months ago

  • Tags deleted (Pulp 3)

Please register to edit this issue

Send by e-mail

Also available in: Atom PDF