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

Refactor the registry system #235

Draft
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Refactor the registry system #235

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

mara-schulke
Copy link
Contributor

Current State

At the moment users specify registries and repositories in every single dependency declaration. This does not only lead to a chunky Proto.toml as we repeat common information way more often that we actually need to, it also has a semantic impact:

It allows users to request a dependencies from distributed registries at the same time and it inherently teaches buffrs about the existence of repositories.

E.g.

[dependencies]
foo = { registry = "https://foo.bar/baz", repository = "bar", version = "=1.0.0" }

Context

In the realm of dynamic version resolution we need to rethink this current state: Established version resolution algorithms like pubgrub and resolve are not aware of this situation.

E.g. in the current situation a package [email protected] could be present in the repository foo and [email protected] could be present in the repository baz. When using the above mentioned version solvers with a request to install a>=1.0 this leads to a quite hard decision problem: Do we want to jump repositories when we know that there is a later stable release present in another one? How do we get to know about the other repository? Is this the desired behavior?

Although this setup may seem odd at first glance it is not so far of some real world setups using artifactory where repositories are used to distinguish between stability. E.g. many companies publish prereleases and stable releases into different repositories.

A possible way forward

Some possible ideas to solve this problem are:

Using Named Registries

Using named registries we can move towards a registry based approach and drop our in-manifest knowledge about repositories altogether.

Users could name registries in a configuration file and declare a set of artifactory repositories to search through:

$HOME/.buffrs/config.toml / $PWD/.buffrs/config.toml:

[registry]
default = { uri = "http://foo.bar/baz", repositories = ["a", "b", "c"] }

When installing buffrs would now search the above repositories (using the artifactory search api) to locate possible releases. This would be quite efficient and elegant as this would result in the manifest looking like this:

[dependency]
foo = "=1.0.0"

or (foo = { version = "=1.0.0" }). Which is not only much more readable but also leaves us the ability to jump around repositories within the same registry to resolve different versions, thus unifying the version set from being sharded across repositories into one big searchable version set for version resolution. All of this is achieved while stripping out the repository concept from the actual buffrs manifests!

One caveat is that we need to still specify the exact repository when publishing, but this can be done via the cli anyway.

Dropping prereleases

See pubgrubs take on prereleases. They introduce a lot of headache when trying to do version resolution correctly and it may be a good tradeoff to drop their support for now in order to ship proper dependency resolution.


I am probably not going to have the time to finish this any time soon, contributions are welcome.

@mara-schulke mara-schulke added datamodel Changes related to the Datamodel component::cli Everything related to the buffrs cli priority::critical This should have been done yesterday complexity::high Issues or ideas that are highly complex. require discussion and may affect backwards compatibility type::epic An epic change. This is going to make a big difference to buffrs as a product. docs::project Documenting the project vision, design decisions etc labels Apr 22, 2024
@mara-schulke mara-schulke added this to the Stabilization milestone Apr 22, 2024
@mara-schulke mara-schulke marked this pull request as draft April 22, 2024 09:53
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
complexity::high Issues or ideas that are highly complex. require discussion and may affect backwards compatibility component::cli Everything related to the buffrs cli datamodel Changes related to the Datamodel docs::project Documenting the project vision, design decisions etc priority::critical This should have been done yesterday type::epic An epic change. This is going to make a big difference to buffrs as a product.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant