Revert "Fix --sync
missing some recipes"
#123
Merged
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Reverts #122
Okay, it finally hit me what was happening...
So the way it was previously implemented
--sync
would find all top-level recipes for a build, then would sync them plus any recipes that they referenced by hash. #122 changed it so it would find all internal recipes, either by hash or nested directly. The PR changed it so these internal recipes would be synced tooI think it would be a valid decision to sync these internal recipes, but for the purposes of
--sync
, I think it's the wrong choice. Namely, it just pollutes the registry with some recipes that should never get directly downloaded (clients only download the recipes referenced by hash, they would never have a need to download a recipe embedded directly)As for the issue with
eza
, I finally realized that it was just because some of the bakes I had locally were non canonical (meaning that what was stored in my local DB was different than the registry), which meant that later recipes diverged enough that I got a cache miss.Basically, all that is to say is that everything was already working as expected prior to #112, although the end result was unintuitive. Upon reflection, I felt that the earlier behavior was more in line with how syncing should work