models: add Interactive Session model #90
Conversation
audrium
force-pushed
the
interactive_session_model
branch
5 times, most recently
from
4fb1c3e
to
31c0c65
Compare
reana_db/models.py
Outdated
| __tablename__ = "user_workflow_session" | ||
| __table_args__ = {"schema": "__reana"} | ||
|
|
||
| user_id = Column(UUIDType, ForeignKey("__reana.user_.id_"), nullable=False) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need to add the user here? I rather see this table as WorkflowSession or WorkflowInteractiveSession and the relation to User to be simply backtracked from InteractiveSession through owner_id (I see ternary relationship was mentioned in the original issue, but I have second thoughts).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's a good solution IMO. @tiborsimko , what do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, for this sprint and for MVP, it seems perfectly OK indeed.
(However, we may need to refactor this later, when we shall be addressing user group and access rights. Example: currently, a Workflow row has an owner_id, but in reality there can be several people associated with a workflow: one main owner, 2-3 collaborators having some R/W rights e.g. to rerun it, a convener having R/O rights to see the results, etc. Some collaborators could run different notebooks on the same workspace, not being owners strictly speaking... These kinds of considerations can naturally wait for later; however it is good to have a future outlook with a flexible "user-workflow-session-role" structure in mind to see where we shall be heading later.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@tiborsimko, should we create an issue from your comment? Or this is something to bear in mind?
| jupyter = 0 | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| class InteractiveSession(Base, Timestamp): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We are missing the InteractiveSessionResource table (like WorkflowResource), we will need it to account resource usage in InteractiveSessions (more here).
For now, we should measure just CPU usage, not disk usage since now the workspace is the same as the workflow and it is already accounted (which would change if we go for https://github.com/reanahub/reana-db/pull/90/files#r501548133). Can you remember to open an issue for this, "accounting for InteractiveSessions CPU usage" once we merge this?
audrium
force-pushed
the
interactive_session_model
branch
from
69b73dc
to
38845c8
Compare
audrium
force-pushed
the
interactive_session_model
branch
3 times, most recently
from
1fa73aa
to
359fa3c
Compare
|
Minor: there's a typo in the last commit title. |
audrium
force-pushed
the
interactive_session_model
branch
2 times, most recently
from
b6baafd
to
a560101
Compare
audrium
force-pushed
the
interactive_session_model
branch
from
a560101
to
30c4863
Compare
closes #89