RFC: Rework Expected Package ownership model #1602
Description
This is to track the semi-complete work on Expected Package ownership (original proposal #1258)
The remaining tasks do not have anyone planned to work on them, unless indicated here
Use Case
The Expected Package flow results in package manager seeing each use or each piece refencing a clip as a separate package.
This results in a lot of unnecessary work for package-manager and causes delays in package status updates
Proposal
This was investigated a while ago by NRK, with some code and notes posted in #1258, read there for more details.
The plan proposed there was to:
- Change the structure of the ExpectedPackages collection, to allow for shared ownership (but keep it 1:1 for now). feat: restructure ExpectedPackages collection in preparation for multiple owners SOFIE-241 #1588
- Change the ingest behaviour, to deduplicate documents in the ExpectedPackages collection. feat: rework ExpectedPackages generation/management to share documents within rundown/bucket #1589
- Change the playout behaviour to add references to these documents during playout instead of the current treatment of pieceInstances in the publication for package-manager. I see this step as the risky one, getting the lifetimes of documents correct needs some thought. feat: rework ExpectedPackages generation/management to share packages between ingest and playout #1595
- Restructure the expectedPackages property on pieces/adlibs/related types, to avoid duplication and size of piece documents
- Figure out how to make playing bucket adlibs smoother (shared packages/shared statuses/copy statues upon creating playout package?)
Process
No response