Hi again,
I've been thinking about this upgrade, and I'm wondering how I should set things up in the future...
Until now, I have used the Dropbox feature in conjunction with Samba & LDAP to let users put their original files on the server. That way, no client was required to upload files, create a back up (useful for scientists willing to grab their data before they leave the lab) or access the original files (useful for incompatible software).
However, with the managed repository, I might try to do things differently...
Would it be possible to give read-only access (through Samba) to the user's folder in this repository ?
The problem I see is that omero users come from LDAP, but their IDs are appended to their names in the managed repository which makes it hard to map them to a restricted share.
And although usernames should always be unique in our case (since they come from LDAP and are linked to a DN for authentication), it seems impossible to alter "omero.fs.repo.path" to reflect this property.
But maybe I should drop the idea of giving direct access to the original files...
About the images migration, I also wondered...
Would the API function "isFSImage()" really allow me to determine if an image is managed by OMERO 5 or if it was imported before the migration (legacy images) ?
If that's the case, I could upgrade the server (and the workflow) soon, and try to make a set of scripts to copy the annotations to duplicate images and delete processed "legacy" images afterwards.
I could try to match images based on the size and the content (hash ?) instead of the name.
For each user, I would store a table with multiple columns: dimensions, hash, old ids (array ?), new ids (array ?), processed (boolean). Then, I would copy annotations from old ids to new ids, and if everything goes well, mark them as "processed". Finally, I would delete the old images that have been processed.
Or maybe I should try to make a more general script to "merge" annotations from duplicate images (based on hash), and then another script to just delete legacy images...
Would that approach work ?