feat: obviate ghostlinkd

[rjsparks]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 95.23810% with 2 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 88.84%. Comparing base (187c2c5) to head (6de2457).
Report is 101 commits behind head on main.

Files	Patch %	Lines
ietf/doc/views_charter.py	71.42%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #7336      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.98%   88.84%   -0.15%     
==========================================
  Files         291      291              
  Lines       40717    40908     +191     
==========================================
+ Hits        36233    36344     +111     
- Misses       4484     4564      +80     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[jennifer-richards]

Reviewed what's here. Agree that you've caught all the places in your comments in the first commit. A couple minor questions that might just reflect the wip-ness of this PR.

Also, I think you can remove your TODO in views_charter.py now?

[rjsparks]

fwiw, for each unit, I left “bury the errors” vs “crash if there are errors” strategies as they are. Both of them bug me immensely. But to do a better thing in all these places (where the errors are really bad, and crashing is really bad) will require a bigger refactor.

[rjsparks]

Also (for future us looking back at why we did this likely-to-look-foolish thing) - this moves a baked-in assumption into the datatracker from ghostlinkd (that the linked things are on the same filesystem and hardlinks will work).

Hopefully in the near future, we will keep all the things touched here in a blobstore instead of the filesystem and the above assumption (and the things this PR adds) will be simplified/rationalized into other applications feeding from that blobstore.

[jennifer-richards]

this moves a baked-in assumption into the datatracker from ghostlinkd (that the linked things are on the same filesystem and hardlinks will work).

Still reviewing, but maybe this is an indication it's worth wrapping the hardlink operation in a update_in_archives() method that does whatever magic is appropriate? (Better name recommended, and this is not a fully baked suggestion.)

[jennifer-richards]

Looks good, just a leftover "todo" comment to remove that I see.

WRT my comment about wrapping the link() operation - I think we'll end up wanting to do that, but I don't think it's necessary now. The main advantage is that I think it'd make the tests more independent, which might be slightly easier to change now. (Instead of separately testing that each place makes the right hard links, it'd just be a test that the hypothetical method was called, then a single test to update when that changes to a new mirroring strategy).

I don't think it'll be that much easier to do this now vs later, though.