Administration Changes to Support rsync

[djbrooke]

We'll need to make changes at the Installation and the dataverse level to support the new options available for rsync. Two that were discussed were:

• Administrators able to define the file transfers/uploads available (dropbox, rsync, UI)
• Setting the Data Capture Module (Data Capture Module (rsync support) #3145) URL in the installation configuration settings

[pdurbin]

During the 2016-09-08 SBGrid Sprint Planning meeting ( https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wWSdKUOGA1L7UqFsgF3aOs8_9uyjnVpsPAxk7FObOOI/edit ) this issue was given an effort level of "3" because code has already been written.

We're using :DataCaptureModuleUrl as the setting key in the database in the standard way.

With regard to administrators being able to define the file transfers available we have defined an enum called FileUploadMechanism on the Dataset entity: https://github.com/bmckinney/dataverse-canonical/blob/b280c34fcc231b41cf9e801aff992e3858c17775/src/main/java/edu/harvard/iq/dataverse/Dataset.java#L43 . I'm fine with the approach (I added it) and I think @bmckinney and @pameyer are fine with it as well but during the meeting I got the impression that @scolapasta wanted to weigh in on the design before we commit to this approach so I'm assigning this issue to him, me, and Bill to discuss.

[pdurbin]

@bmckinney @djbrooke and I discussed this and we moved it to "Ready" at https://waffle.io/IQSS/dataverse

@bmckinney and I are fine with the approach so I believe the next step is to make a pull request based on the code mentioned above.

[djbrooke]

• Is any of the code mentioned above helpful for Dataverse -> DCM APIs #3725 or configuration for enabling DCM,RSAL, etc (external components) #3724?
• Can this be closed?

@pdurbin @pameyer

[pdurbin]

@djbrooke this issue is one of eight created last September in our attempt to break #3145 into smaller chunks: #3145 (comment)

Yes, the code mentioned above is helpful, especially #3724. There's still an open question of if @scolapasta wants to weight in on the approach before we commit to it, as mentioned at #3347 (comment) . In #3724 this is described as "Binary configuration items (on/off switch), or lists (native/http,dcm/rsync+ssh, etc)? Additional implementation complexity and/or performance of lists vs binary hasn't been evaluated." A decision still needs to be made.

For now I'll link to this issue from #3724.

[pdurbin]

I'm closing this because #3724 is done and #3942 is in the works.

[pdurbin]

#3348 is still open as well so we can circle back to anything written back above, if necessary.