Closed no-reply closed 1 year ago
Koppie uses Disk, nurax-pg is a different app.
Someone decides which adapter nurax-pg uses. Is nurax-pg a real production installation that we recommend people install?
Answer the question: What storage adapter will nurax-pg run, and will it support versioning. @dlpierce we're looking for an authoritative answer here.
Questions to answer:
Someone decides which adapter nurax-pg uses. Is nurax-pg a real production installation that we recommend people install?
Nurax PG was set to use disk out of convenience, but that can change. It should be made representative of all the major hyrax features, file versioning included, and provide an example of how a site might be deployed.
Answer the question: What storage adapter will nurax-pg run, and will it support versioning.
Whichever adapter supports versioning so it can be demonstrated. Having a disk backed storage with versioning is likely attractive to implementers who don't need/want to use an object store, but I don't think nurax-pg needs to use a disk storage adapter necessarily.
It is now possible to upload a new version of a fileset to pg.nurax. I am seeing an error message when uploading a new version that doesn't seem to affect functionality. Restoring also does not seem to work. I will open new tickets for these issues.
there's a need to test file version management as implemented in the Hyrax UI (cf. https://github.com/samvera/hyrax/issues/6211).
nurax-pg
currently uses theValkyrie::Storage::Disk
adapter, which does not support versions.determine a path forward for supporting versions on
nurax-pg
. it's possible we'll want to test this by implementing versioning for thedisk
adapter, or it may be possible we want to avoid this and implement versioning in a more realistic context (e.g. usingshrine
).as a secondary consideration, we may also want to factor in how our choices here will or won't support us when testing in (
.koppie
),Some considerations:
nurax-pg
be using this adapter, in general?disk
adapter going to be a bad idea, in that it will encourage adopters to use a non-robust versioning implementation? (or could it be made robust within a reasonable scope of work?)