Re: [GsoC] your latest commit of tasks_udd.py
Hi Akshita,
On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 02:45:49AM +0530, Akshita Jha wrote:
> > >
> > > Release Version Architectures
> > > wheezy 1.3.1-1 all
> > > sid 1.3.1-2 all
> > > stretch 1.3.1-2 all
> > > jessie 1.3.1-2 all
> >
> > That's definitely *wrong* (and I wonder why it is different from the
> > deployed page.
> >
>
> Can you please confirm whether releases in the tasks files created from
> tasks.py in your local machine have the same order as the deployed page ?
$ grep 1\.3\.1-2 webtools_py3/tests/debian-med/*
$
So I can not reproduce the diff concerning this.
> > Thats an artefact from a remaining hurd-i386 build.
> > However, it shows that my initial orderin is
> >
> > ORDER BY version, release
> >
>
> Yes. I guess this ordering is due to the code snippet :
>
> SELECT package, ptmp.release as release,
> strip_binary_upload(version) AS version, archs, component FROM
> ( SELECT package, release, version,
> array_to_string(array_sort(array_accum(architecture)),',') AS archs,
> component
> FROM (
> SELECT package,
> release || CASE WHEN
> char_length(substring(distribution from '-.*')) > 0
> THEN substring(distribution from '-.*')
> ELSE '' END AS release,
> -- make *-volatile a "pseudo-release"
>
> strip_binary_upload(regexp_replace(version, '^[0-9]:', '')) AS
> version,
> architecture,
> component
> FROM packages
> WHERE package = ANY ($1)
> ) AS prvac
> GROUP BY package, version, release, component
> ) ptmp
> JOIN releases ON releases.release = ptmp.release
> ORDER BY version, releases.sort
> ) tmp GROUP BY package
>
> in blends_query_packages() [1]. There seems to be no other prepared query
> where such an ordering or grouping is done.
Yes, that is the query in question.
> > That's also totally wong (looks like random order)
> >
> > > 3) For debian-med tasks file created from tasks_udd.py:
> > >
> > > Release Version Architectures
> > > squeeze 0.5.8c-1
> > >
> amd64,armel,i386,ia64,kfreebsd-amd64,kfreebsd-i386,mips,mipsel,powerpc,s390,sparc
> > > wheezy 0.6.2-1
> > >
> amd64,armel,armhf,i386,ia64,kfreebsd-amd64,kfreebsd-i386,mips,mipsel,powerpc,s390,s390x,sparc
> > > jessie 0.7.10-1 amd64
> > > stretch 0.7.12-4 amd64
> > > sid 0.7.12-4 amd64,kfreebsd-amd64
> > > sid 0.6.2-1 hurd-i386
> >
> > Is basically what we want.
>
> If this is basically what we want, then can't we keep ordering the releases
> by 'sort' as it is in new tasks_udd.py ?
Yes, that's perfectly fine. I guess I did not thought about it well
enough in the beginning.
> > ordering to have the same as the deployed site. In most cases it should
> > be the same. I have no idea why your local builds are different.
>
> I am also unable to figure out why my local builds are different. If I am
> right, the query - blends_query_packages()[1] orders by versions and
> releases. If this is what is needed for the time being, I don't think there
> is any need to make changes to the prepared queries query_pkgs, query_vcs
> or query_new (since these queries are same as the ones used in old
> tasks.py). I can revert the 'order by sort' commit, but apart from that I
> feel there is no other change needed. Please correct me, if I am wrong.
I think you are right.
> Also, just as a side note - I have ordered new pacakges alphabetically and
> added their version info.
Fine. I'll have a look later.
> > > [0] http://blends.debian.org/med/tasks/bio
> [1]
> https://udd.debian.org/schema/udd.html#public.function.blends-query-packages-textARRAY-textARRAY
Cool - I was not aware of this web view.
I think you could continue with the prospective packages importer.
In general I think we are good in time for the project if we keep the
current pace.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: