Remove old lister tutorial.
Sphinx complains because it's an orphan document.
This commit is contained in:
parent
d5d7830b64
commit
465506a0ce
2 changed files with 0 additions and 368 deletions
|
@ -1,366 +0,0 @@
|
|||
.. _lister-tutorial-2017:
|
||||
|
||||
Tutorial: list the content of your favorite forge in just a few steps
|
||||
=====================================================================
|
||||
|
||||
(the `original version
|
||||
<https://www.softwareheritage.org/2017/03/24/list-the-content-of-your-favorite-forge-in-just-a-few-steps/>`_
|
||||
of this article appeared on the Software Heritage blog)
|
||||
|
||||
Back in November 2016, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote about structural code changes
|
||||
`leading to a massive (+15 million!) upswing in the number of repositories
|
||||
archived by Software Heritage
|
||||
<https://www.softwareheritage.org/2016/11/09/listing-47-million-repositories-refactoring-our-github-lister/>`_
|
||||
through a combination of automatic linkage between the listing and loading
|
||||
scheduler, new understanding of how to deal with extremely large repository
|
||||
hosts like `GitHub <https://github.com/>`_, and activating a new set of
|
||||
repositories that had previously been skipped over.
|
||||
|
||||
In the post, Nicolas outlined the three major phases of work in Software
|
||||
Heritage's preservation process (listing, scheduling updates, loading) and
|
||||
highlighted that the ability to preserve the world's free software heritage
|
||||
depends on our ability to find and list the repositories.
|
||||
|
||||
At the time, Software Heritage was only able to list projects on
|
||||
GitHub. Focusing early on GitHub, one of the largest and most active forge in
|
||||
the world, allowed for a big value-to-effort ratio and a rapid launch for the
|
||||
archive. As the old Italian proverb goes, "Il meglio è nemico del bene," or in
|
||||
modern English parlance, "Perfect is the enemy of good," right? Right. So the
|
||||
plan from the beginning was to implement a lister for GitHub, then maybe
|
||||
implement another one, and then take a few giant steps backward and squint our
|
||||
eyes.
|
||||
|
||||
Why? Because source code hosting services don't behave according to a unified
|
||||
standard. Each new service requires dedicated development time to implement a
|
||||
new scraping client for the non-transferable requirements and intricacies of
|
||||
that service's API. At the time, doing it in an extensible and adaptable way
|
||||
required a level of exposure to the myriad differences between these services
|
||||
that we just didn't think we had yet.
|
||||
|
||||
Nicolas' post closed by saying "We haven't carved out a stable API yet that
|
||||
allows you to just fill in the blanks, as we only have the GitHub lister
|
||||
currently, and a proven API will emerge organically only once we have some
|
||||
diversity."
|
||||
|
||||
That has since changed. As of March 6, 2017, the Software Heritage **lister
|
||||
code has been aggressively restructured, abstracted, and commented** to make
|
||||
creating new listers significantly easier. There may yet be a few kinks to iron
|
||||
out, but **now making a new lister is practically like filling in the blanks**.
|
||||
|
||||
Fundamentally, a basic lister must follow these steps:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Issue a network request for a service endpoint.
|
||||
2. Convert the response into a canonical format.
|
||||
3. Populate a work queue for fetching and ingesting source repositories.
|
||||
|
||||
Steps 1 and 3 are generic problems, so they can get generic solutions hidden
|
||||
away in the base code, most of which never needs to change. That leaves us to
|
||||
implement step 2, which can be trivially done now for services with a clean web
|
||||
APIs.
|
||||
|
||||
In the new code, we've tried to hide away as much generic functionality as
|
||||
possible, turning it into set-and-forget plumbing between a few simple
|
||||
customized elements. Different hosting services might use different network
|
||||
protocols, rate-limit messages, or pagination schemes, but, as long as there is
|
||||
some way to get a list of the hosted repositories, we think that the new base
|
||||
code will make getting those repositories much easier.
|
||||
|
||||
First, let me give you the 30,000 foot view…
|
||||
|
||||
The old GitHub-specific lister code looked like this (265 lines of Python):
|
||||
|
||||
.. figure:: images/old_github_lister.png
|
||||
|
||||
By contrast, the new GitHub-specific code looks like this (34 lines of Python):
|
||||
|
||||
.. figure:: images/new_github_lister.png
|
||||
|
||||
And the new BitBucket-specific code is even shorter and looks like this (24 lines of Python):
|
||||
|
||||
.. figure:: images/new_bitbucket_lister.png
|
||||
|
||||
And now this is common shared code in a few abstract base classes, with some new
|
||||
features and loads of docstring comments (in red):
|
||||
|
||||
.. figure:: images/new_base.png
|
||||
|
||||
So how does the lister code work now, and **how might a contributing developer
|
||||
go about making a new one**
|
||||
|
||||
The first thing to know is that we now have a generic lister base class and ORM
|
||||
model. A subclass of the lister base should already be able to do almost
|
||||
everything needed to complete a listing task for a single service
|
||||
request/response cycle with the following implementation requirements:
|
||||
|
||||
1. A member variable must be declared called ``MODEL``, which is equal to a
|
||||
subclass (Note: type, not instance) of the base ORM model. The reasons for
|
||||
using a subclass is mostly just because different services use different
|
||||
incompatible primary identifiers for their repositories. The model
|
||||
subclasses are typically only one or two additional variable declarations.
|
||||
|
||||
2. A method called ``transport_request`` must be implemented, which takes the
|
||||
complete target identifier (e.g., a URL) and tries to request it one time
|
||||
using whatever transport protocol is required for interacting with the
|
||||
service. It should not attempt to retry on timeouts or do anything else with
|
||||
the response (that is already done for you). It should just either return
|
||||
the response or raise a ``FetchError`` exception.
|
||||
|
||||
3. A method called ``transport_response_to_string`` must be implemented, which
|
||||
takes the entire response of the request in (1) and converts it to a string
|
||||
for logging purposes.
|
||||
|
||||
4. A method called ``transport_quota_check`` must be implemented, which takes
|
||||
the entire response of the request in (1) and checks to see if the process
|
||||
has run afoul of any query quotas or rate limits. If the service says to
|
||||
wait before making more requests, the method should return ``True`` and also
|
||||
the number of seconds to wait, otherwise it returns ``False``.
|
||||
|
||||
5. A method called ``transport_response_simplified`` must be implemented, which
|
||||
also takes the entire response of the request in (1) and converts it to a
|
||||
Python list of dicts (one dict for each repository) with keys given
|
||||
according to the aforementioned ``MODEL`` class members.
|
||||
|
||||
Because 1, 2, 3, and 4 are basically dependent only on the chosen network
|
||||
protocol, we also have an HTTP mix-in module, which supplements the lister base
|
||||
and provides default implementations for those methods along with optional
|
||||
request header injection using the Python Requests library. The
|
||||
``transport_quota_check`` method as provided follows the IETF standard for
|
||||
communicating rate limits with `HTTP code 429
|
||||
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6585#section-4>`_ which some hosting services
|
||||
have chosen not to follow, so it's possible that a specific lister will need to
|
||||
override it.
|
||||
|
||||
On top of all of that, we also provide another layer over the base lister class
|
||||
which adds support for sequentially looping over indices. What are indices?
|
||||
Well, some services (`BitBucket <https://bitbucket.org/>`_ and GitHub for
|
||||
example) don't send you the entire list of all of their repositories at once,
|
||||
because that server response would be unwieldy. Instead they paginate their
|
||||
results, and they also allow you to query their APIs like this:
|
||||
``https://server_address.tld/query_type?start_listing_from_id=foo``. Changing
|
||||
the value of 'foo' lets you fetch a set of repositories starting from there. We
|
||||
call 'foo' an index, and we call a service that works this way an indexing
|
||||
service. GitHub uses the repository unique identifier and BitBucket uses the
|
||||
repository creation time, but a service can really use anything as long as the
|
||||
values monotonically increase with new repositories. A good indexing service
|
||||
also includes the URL of the next page with a later 'foo' in its responses. For
|
||||
these indexing services we provide another intermediate lister called the
|
||||
indexing lister. Instead of inheriting from :class:`ListerBase
|
||||
<swh.lister.core.lister_base.ListerBase>`, the lister class would inherit
|
||||
from :class:`IndexingLister
|
||||
<swh.lister.core.indexing_lister.IndexingLister>`. Along with the
|
||||
requirements of the lister base, the indexing lister base adds one extra
|
||||
requirement:
|
||||
|
||||
1. A method called ``get_next_target_from_response`` must be defined, which
|
||||
takes a complete request response and returns the index ('foo' above) of the
|
||||
next page.
|
||||
|
||||
So those are all the basic requirements. There are, of course, a few other
|
||||
little bits and pieces (covered for now in the code's docstring comments), but
|
||||
for the most part that's it. It sounds like a lot of information to absorb and
|
||||
implement, but remember that most of the implementation requirements mentioned
|
||||
above are already provided for 99% of services by the HTTP mix-in module. It
|
||||
looks much simpler when we look at the actual implementations of the two
|
||||
new-style indexing listers we currently have…
|
||||
|
||||
When developing a new lister, it's important to test. For this, add the tests
|
||||
(check `swh/lister/*/tests/`) and register the celery tasks in the main
|
||||
conftest.py (`swh/lister/core/tests/conftest.py`).
|
||||
|
||||
Another important step is to actually run it within the
|
||||
docker-dev (:ref:`run-lister-tutorial`).
|
||||
|
||||
This is the entire source code for the BitBucket repository lister::
|
||||
|
||||
# Copyright (C) 2017 the Software Heritage developers
|
||||
# License: GNU General Public License version 3 or later
|
||||
# See top-level LICENSE file for more information
|
||||
|
||||
from urllib import parse
|
||||
from swh.lister.bitbucket.models import BitBucketModel
|
||||
from swh.lister.core.indexing_lister import IndexingHttpLister
|
||||
|
||||
class BitBucketLister(IndexingHttpLister):
|
||||
PATH_TEMPLATE = '/repositories?after=%s'
|
||||
MODEL = BitBucketModel
|
||||
|
||||
def get_model_from_repo(self, repo):
|
||||
return {'uid': repo['uuid'],
|
||||
'indexable': repo['created_on'],
|
||||
'name': repo['name'],
|
||||
'full_name': repo['full_name'],
|
||||
'html_url': repo['links']['html']['href'],
|
||||
'origin_url': repo['links']['clone'][0]['href'],
|
||||
'origin_type': repo['scm'],
|
||||
'description': repo['description']}
|
||||
|
||||
def get_next_target_from_response(self, response):
|
||||
body = response.json()
|
||||
if 'next' in body:
|
||||
return parse.unquote(body['next'].split('after=')[1])
|
||||
else:
|
||||
return None
|
||||
|
||||
def transport_response_simplified(self, response):
|
||||
repos = response.json()['values']
|
||||
return [self.get_model_from_repo(repo) for repo in repos]
|
||||
|
||||
And this is the entire source code for the GitHub repository lister::
|
||||
|
||||
# Copyright (C) 2017 the Software Heritage developers
|
||||
# License: GNU General Public License version 3 or later
|
||||
# See top-level LICENSE file for more information
|
||||
|
||||
import time
|
||||
from swh.lister.core.indexing_lister import IndexingHttpLister
|
||||
from swh.lister.github.models import GitHubModel
|
||||
|
||||
class GitHubLister(IndexingHttpLister):
|
||||
PATH_TEMPLATE = '/repositories?since=%d'
|
||||
MODEL = GitHubModel
|
||||
|
||||
def get_model_from_repo(self, repo):
|
||||
return {'uid': repo['id'],
|
||||
'indexable': repo['id'],
|
||||
'name': repo['name'],
|
||||
'full_name': repo['full_name'],
|
||||
'html_url': repo['html_url'],
|
||||
'origin_url': repo['html_url'],
|
||||
'origin_type': 'git',
|
||||
'description': repo['description']}
|
||||
|
||||
def get_next_target_from_response(self, response):
|
||||
if 'next' in response.links:
|
||||
next_url = response.links['next']['url']
|
||||
return int(next_url.split('since=')[1])
|
||||
else:
|
||||
return None
|
||||
|
||||
def transport_response_simplified(self, response):
|
||||
repos = response.json()
|
||||
return [self.get_model_from_repo(repo) for repo in repos]
|
||||
|
||||
def request_headers(self):
|
||||
return {'Accept': 'application/vnd.github.v3+json'}
|
||||
|
||||
def transport_quota_check(self, response):
|
||||
remain = int(response.headers['X-RateLimit-Remaining'])
|
||||
if response.status_code == 403 and remain == 0:
|
||||
reset_at = int(response.headers['X-RateLimit-Reset'])
|
||||
delay = min(reset_at - time.time(), 3600)
|
||||
return True, delay
|
||||
else:
|
||||
return False, 0
|
||||
|
||||
We can see that there are some common elements:
|
||||
|
||||
* Both use the HTTP transport mixin (:class:`IndexingHttpLister
|
||||
<swh.lister.core.indexing_lister.IndexingHttpLister>`) just combines
|
||||
:class:`ListerHttpTransport
|
||||
<swh.lister.core.lister_transports.ListerHttpTransport>` and
|
||||
:class:`IndexingLister
|
||||
<swh.lister.core.indexing_lister.IndexingLister>`) to get most of the
|
||||
network request functionality for free.
|
||||
|
||||
* Both also define ``MODEL`` and ``PATH_TEMPLATE`` variables. It should be
|
||||
clear to developers that ``PATH_TEMPLATE``, when combined with the base
|
||||
service URL (e.g., ``https://some_service.com``) and passed a value (the
|
||||
'foo' index described earlier) results in a complete identifier for making
|
||||
API requests to these services. It is required by our HTTP module.
|
||||
|
||||
* Both services respond using JSON, so both implementations of
|
||||
``transport_response_simplified`` are similar and quite short.
|
||||
|
||||
We can also see that there are a few differences:
|
||||
|
||||
* GitHub sends the next URL as part of the response header, while BitBucket
|
||||
sends it in the response body.
|
||||
|
||||
* GitHub differentiates API versions with a request header (our HTTP
|
||||
transport mix-in will automatically use any headers provided by an
|
||||
optional request_headers method that we implement here), while
|
||||
BitBucket has it as part of their base service URL. BitBucket uses
|
||||
the IETF standard HTTP 429 response code for their rate limit
|
||||
notifications (the HTTP transport mix-in automatically handles
|
||||
that), while GitHub uses their own custom response headers that need
|
||||
special treatment.
|
||||
|
||||
* But look at them! 58 lines of Python code, combined, to absorb all
|
||||
repositories from two of the largest and most influential source code hosting
|
||||
services.
|
||||
|
||||
Ok, so what is going on behind the scenes?
|
||||
|
||||
To trace the operation of the code, let's start with a sample instantiation and
|
||||
progress from there to see which methods get called when. What follows will be
|
||||
a series of extremely reductionist pseudocode methods. This is not what the
|
||||
code actually looks like (it's not even real code), but it does have the same
|
||||
basic flow. Bear with me while I try to lay out lister operation in a
|
||||
quasi-linear way…::
|
||||
|
||||
# main task
|
||||
|
||||
ghl = GitHubLister(lister_name='github.com',
|
||||
api_baseurl='https://github.com')
|
||||
ghl.run()
|
||||
|
||||
⇓ (IndexingLister.run)::
|
||||
|
||||
# IndexingLister.run
|
||||
|
||||
identifier = None
|
||||
do
|
||||
response, repos = ListerBase.ingest_data(identifier)
|
||||
identifier = GitHubLister.get_next_target_from_response(response)
|
||||
while(identifier)
|
||||
|
||||
⇓ (ListerBase.ingest_data)::
|
||||
|
||||
# ListerBase.ingest_data
|
||||
|
||||
response = ListerBase.safely_issue_request(identifier)
|
||||
repos = GitHubLister.transport_response_simplified(response)
|
||||
injected = ListerBase.inject_repo_data_into_db(repos)
|
||||
return response, injected
|
||||
|
||||
⇓ (ListerBase.safely_issue_request)::
|
||||
|
||||
# ListerBase.safely_issue_request
|
||||
|
||||
repeat:
|
||||
resp = ListerHttpTransport.transport_request(identifier)
|
||||
retry, delay = ListerHttpTransport.transport_quota_check(resp)
|
||||
if retry:
|
||||
sleep(delay)
|
||||
until((not retry) or too_many_retries)
|
||||
return resp
|
||||
|
||||
⇓ (ListerHttpTransport.transport_request)::
|
||||
|
||||
# ListerHttpTransport.transport_request
|
||||
|
||||
path = ListerBase.api_baseurl
|
||||
+ ListerHttpTransport.PATH_TEMPLATE % identifier
|
||||
headers = ListerHttpTransport.request_headers()
|
||||
return http.get(path, headers)
|
||||
|
||||
(Oh look, there's our ``PATH_TEMPLATE``)
|
||||
|
||||
⇓ (ListerHttpTransport.request_headers)::
|
||||
|
||||
# ListerHttpTransport.request_headers
|
||||
|
||||
override → GitHubLister.request_headers
|
||||
|
||||
↑↑ (ListerBase.safely_issue_request)
|
||||
|
||||
⇓ (ListerHttpTransport.transport_quota_check)::
|
||||
|
||||
# ListerHttpTransport.transport_quota_check
|
||||
|
||||
override → GitHubLister.transport_quota_check
|
||||
|
||||
And then we're done. From start to finish, I hope this helps you understand how
|
||||
the few customized pieces fit into the new shared plumbing.
|
||||
|
||||
Now you can go and write up a lister for a code hosting site we don't have yet!
|
|
@ -357,8 +357,6 @@ More about listers
|
|||
|
||||
See current implemented listers as examples (GitHub_, Bitbucket_, CGit_, GitLab_ ).
|
||||
|
||||
Old (2017) lister tutorial :ref:`lister-tutorial-2017`
|
||||
|
||||
.. _GitHub: https://forge.softwareheritage.org/source/swh-lister/browse/master/swh/lister/github/lister.py
|
||||
.. _Bitbucket: https://forge.softwareheritage.org/source/swh-lister/browse/master/swh/lister/bitbucket/lister.py
|
||||
.. _CGit: https://forge.softwareheritage.org/source/swh-lister/browse/master/swh/lister/cgit/lister.py
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue