Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Dataset versions API #37

Open
wants to merge 31 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

tomeksabala
Copy link

@tomeksabala tomeksabala commented May 26, 2021

Goal: Introduce versioning at the dataset level.

Details:

Current implementation is oriented around creating versions for resources. My project needs versions created in the scope of a dataset (all resources versioned as one entity).
Currently model.Version accepts resource_id as optional which makes it perfectly usable for this new approach. Also many version actions are "resource id agnostic" (update, delete, list).

Problem:

Some actions however explicitly mentions scope of the resource, e.g. resource_version_create, resource_version_current, etc. which makes it quite hard to use current API to fulfill my needs.

Proposed solution:

Extend the actions of ckanext-versions with a set of endpoints for versions in dataset scope. This PR presents only action functions stubs and set of functional tests to better describe what I want to achieve.
From my perspective it'd be best to have this work as a core part of this extension. If so I could avoid forking it and spending time updating it with latest changes from the origin :)

@pdelboca I would welcome your feedback at this early stage if this work might be accepted at all. I am also happy to change my design if you see fit. Thanks in advance!

…sions

# Conflicts:
#	ckanext/versions/model.py
@tomeksabala tomeksabala marked this pull request as ready for review June 8, 2021 16:28
@tomeksabala
Copy link
Author

@pdelboca It's been a while and my team managed to get a working feature for dataset versions for our client.
Would you find it useful to get at least part of this worked merged back into your repo? If so, I could draft a summary of changes and maybe we could discuss what parts of the changes might be merged back.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

1 participant