I'm trying to decide what I think about this change. Maybe I'm not clear on how it should be used. The UUIDs, I assume, are user-defined, right? We're already doing the UUID check, so we're actually just introducing more overhead by doing a second loop through the repositories, and the end result shouldn't really be any faster. If we do decide we want to add this UUID field to the schema, we'll need a migration definition (see reviews/evolutions/*.py for examples).
We're still looping over every repository to find this UUID, just like we are below. I don't see how this is more efficient here.
Add UUID to the "Add Repository" form and Repository API. Modify post-review to take advantage of this new information.
Review Request #749 — Created Feb. 20, 2009 and discarded
|Review Board SVN (deprecated)|
With a large amount of repositories post-review would take a long time because it would iterate over each one doing an svn info against them to get the UUID. This change gives you the option to include the UUID of the repository in the "Add Repository" form allowing you to limit post-review to a single GET API call. If you do not enter a UUID it will fail through to the old behavior. This change is very small but it inherently modifies the schema, adding a UUID column to the scmtools_repository. I admittedly do not know enough about Django to know how this will effect users upgrading.
I tested locally on my machine with a fresh install of reviewboard.