Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Flagging file loss/corruption #14

Open
ahankinson opened this issue Feb 27, 2018 · 8 comments
Open

Flagging file loss/corruption #14

ahankinson opened this issue Feb 27, 2018 · 8 comments
Labels
Component: Validation Confirmed: In-scope Use case will be included in the upcoming version of the spec or implementation notes.

Comments

@ahankinson
Copy link
Contributor

ahankinson commented Feb 27, 2018

A periodic audit of a filesystem has revealed that a PDF file no longer matches its checksum, and will no longer open in a PDF reader. Checksums should be used to flag this as a problem and alert a validation client that the object is no longer valid.

@ahankinson ahankinson added the Proposed: In-Scope Use case is up for discussion and may change the spec, implementation notes, or become an extension. label Feb 27, 2018
@ahankinson
Copy link
Contributor Author

ahankinson commented Sep 5, 2018

F2F 2018.09.05: Clarification of 'Corruption' -- the first is that the bits changed on disk, i.e. 'bitrot', leading to files not matching their checksum.

The second is format corruption: A file was provided with a correct checksum, but it did not conform to its own spec, e.g., an empty 'zip' file or a badly-encoded JPEG2000. Issue moved to #30.

We should not allow broken invalid OCFL objects to exist. In spec this is a "MUST" that objects must be valid, and checksums should match.

Interventions can include fixing an object to be valid, or, if this is not possible, deleting the object.

@ahankinson ahankinson added Confirmed: In-scope Use case will be included in the upcoming version of the spec or implementation notes. and removed Proposed: In-Scope Use case is up for discussion and may change the spec, implementation notes, or become an extension. labels Sep 5, 2018
@ahankinson
Copy link
Contributor Author

NB: Changed original description to clarify parts of the Use Case that were determined not be in scope.

@ahankinson ahankinson changed the title Corruption recording Corruption handling Sep 5, 2018
This was referenced Sep 5, 2018
@neilsjefferies
Copy link
Member

I would say checksum failure is an OCFL concern. File format validation is not - it is too wooly to define what valid is. Try and define what a valid doc file is.

@rosy1280 rosy1280 added Proposed: In-Scope Use case is up for discussion and may change the spec, implementation notes, or become an extension. and removed Confirmed: In-scope Use case will be included in the upcoming version of the spec or implementation notes. labels Sep 22, 2023
@zimeon zimeon changed the title Corruption handling Flagging file loss/corruption Sep 22, 2023
@zimeon
Copy link
Contributor

zimeon commented Sep 22, 2023

Editors' meeting 2023-09-22: This might be handled by the same tombstone/flagging mechanism as #42

@rosy1280
Copy link
Contributor

Feedback on Use Cases

In advance of version 2 of the OCFL, we are soliciting feedback on use cases. Please feel free to add your thoughts on this use case via the comments.

Polling on Use Cases

In addition to reviewing comments, we are doing an informal poll for each use case that has been tagged as Proposed: In Scope for version 2. You can contribute to the poll for this use case by reacting to this comment. The following reactions are supported:

In favor of the use case Against the use case Neutral on the use case
👍🏼 👎🏼 👀

The poll will remain open through the end of February 2024.

@bdwheele
Copy link

Does "no longer matching it's checksum" also encompass when the file is simply missing or is that another case?

In the event that a file has changed/gone missing and there isn't a way to repair the on-storage ocfl object (for example a replacement file can't be found), it would be good to be able to acknowledge that the file is broken in the object and make the object correct by indicating that the file should have been there but isn't. That way in the future you can either search for objects which contain this information for remediation.

@rosy1280
Copy link
Contributor

at the time of this comment the vote tallied to +2 we are marking this as in-scope for version 2 because we suspect it will be related to #42 which is already in scope for version 2 of the specification

@rosy1280 rosy1280 added Confirmed: In-scope Use case will be included in the upcoming version of the spec or implementation notes. and removed Proposed: In-Scope Use case is up for discussion and may change the spec, implementation notes, or become an extension. labels Feb 29, 2024
@zimeon zimeon added this to the Supported in v2.0 milestone Feb 29, 2024
@zimeon
Copy link
Contributor

zimeon commented Sep 20, 2024

2024-09-20 Editors agree that this use case will be combined with the solution for File Deletion #42, see comment thread there

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Component: Validation Confirmed: In-scope Use case will be included in the upcoming version of the spec or implementation notes.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants