Arvados

17994-filter-by-storage-classes @ 902f8cd258a8dfec749a7f94d478a4027e319750 -- developer-run-tests: #2649

So far this is a minimal implementation, it accepts filters like [["storage_classes_desired", "=", "[\"default\"]"]] -- note the operand is the JSON representation, as it's stored in the database.

• [["storage_classes_desired", "=", ["default"]]] (alternative syntax equivalent to "[\"default\"]")
• [["storage_classes_desired", "contains", ["default"]]] (matches ["foo","default"] as well as exact match ["default"])

Currently, https://doc.arvados.org/main/api/methods.html uses ["foo", "contains", "bar"] as the example for "contains", which is a bit misleading since "contains" only works if the first element is "attr.key" where "attr" is a jsonb object column and "key" is a top-level key in the json object. (Should change "foo" to "properties.foo" to make it more clear, I think.)

• ["properties", "contains", ["foo", "bar"]] matches a record with {"foo": 1, "bar": 2, "baz": 3}
• ["storage_classes_desired", "contains", ["foo", "bar"]] matches a record with ["bar", "foo", "default"].

The storage_classes_* fields aren't indexed. Practically speaking this might be okay -- there are typically very few classes with lots of collections in each, and if a condition matches a large portion of the table, an index doesn't save much time.

17994-filter-by-storage-classes @ 402e69f6e55dce4e11d354c3ca708b8e536c124b -- developer-run-tests: #2651

• accepts ["storage_classes_confirmed", "contains", ["key1", "key2", ...]] (works on any jsonb column)
• accepts ["storage_classes_confirmed", "contains", "key1"]
• reverts adding storage_classes_* to searchable_attributes on collection model (this caused "any" to try to match those columns, which seems undesirable and would require migrating the huge multi-column table index)
• accepts "=", "<>", "!=" operators on jsonb columns even if they aren't in searchable_attributes. This makes it possible to do exact matches on storage_classes_*, which could be useful for degenerate cases like a single-element array or an empty properties object.

If this seems like the right behavior I'll need to update the API methods docs.

17994-filter-by-storage-classes @ be900941bb4ab286cbeb02f65509be938726d67e -- developer-run-tests: #2662

Tom Clegg wrote:

17994-filter-by-storage-classes @ be900941bb4ab286cbeb02f65509be938726d67e -- developer-run-tests: #2662

The developer-run-tests-apps-workbench-integration tests failed so I kicked those off again at developer-run-tests-apps-workbench-integration: #2823 /console. That failed again, so once more at developer-run-tests-apps-workbench-integration: #2824 /console, which finally passed.

LGTM, thanks!