Introduce filestorage app, support for multiple file backends and store file metadata in the database
#1104
Conversation
|
Task linked: QF-2760 Keep the file metadata in the database |
suricactus
force-pushed
the
QF-2760-files
branch
from
895f958 to
59dba4d
Compare
suricactus
force-pushed
the
QF-2760-files
branch
from
59dba4d to
a31eaa0
Compare
|
@gounux apologies for the force push, I first rebased and then realized I had to force push. |
|
|
||
| code = "explicit_deletion_of_last_version" | ||
| message = "Explicit deletion of last file version is not allowed!" | ||
| status_code = status.HTTP_400_BAD_REQUEST |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I saw that the HTTP_400_BAD_REQUEST return code is used several times. Naive question : why ? Why no custom HTTP 4XX codes ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because I think custom HTTP codes are not great practice. Some HTTP clients might not work great with unknown statuses and those provided by default are already good enough. We have the custom information in the code property which the client can interpret.
| migrations.AddField( | ||
| model_name="project", | ||
| name="file_storage", | ||
| field=models.CharField( | ||
| help_text="Which file storage provider should be used for the storing the project related files.", | ||
| max_length=100, | ||
| validators=[qfieldcloud.core.validators.file_storage_name_validator], | ||
| verbose_name="File storage", | ||
| default=get_file_storage_name, | ||
| ), | ||
| preserve_default=False, | ||
| ), | ||
| migrations.AlterField( | ||
| model_name="project", | ||
| name="file_storage", | ||
| field=models.CharField( | ||
| help_text="Which file storage provider should be used for the storing the project related files.", | ||
| max_length=100, | ||
| validators=[qfieldcloud.core.validators.file_storage_name_validator], | ||
| verbose_name="File storage", | ||
| default=qfieldcloud.core.models.get_project_file_storage_default, | ||
| ), | ||
| ), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why adding the field then altering it ? Wouldn't it be possible to merge the two migration "commands" into a single one ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unfortunately, no, it is because of the default value.
We first create a temporary default value, that populates the current "legacy storage" name. Note that the preserve_default=False, which means that there will be no default value permanently set.
Then we set the default to be qfieldcloud.core.models.get_project_file_storage_default, which is permanent.
This PR introduces a new enhanced way to store filedata. Before just dumped everything to the Object Storage. This made everything clumsy, slow and not flexible.
The plan is to quickly migrate all projects to the new storage and delete the legacy approach.
I have closed #1065, which was the same PR.