[24.0] Fix history export with missing dataset hids

[davelopez]

Fixes #18032

Replaces the dataset hid with the encoded_id for generating filenames.

How to test the changes?

• I've included appropriate automated tests.
• This is a refactoring of components with existing test coverage.
• Instructions for manual testing are as follows:
  1. [add testing steps and prerequisites here if you didn't write automated tests covering all your changes]

License

• I agree to license these and all my past contributions to the core galaxy codebase under the MIT license.

[davelopez]

The rest of the test failures seem unrelated.

[dannon]

I think this is good as-is, and inspected archives before and after and they look good to me.

I think for consistency it probably makes sense to do it across the board as you have done it here, but to toss it out for consideration -- did you think about continuing to use the hid primarily, only utilizing encoded_id when there isn't one? Is there any utility retained there in being able to see the expected ordering by hid at a glance in the filenames?

[davelopez]

did you think about continuing to use the hid primarily, only utilizing encoded_id when there isn't one? Is there any utility retained there in being able to see the expected ordering by hid at a glance in the filenames?

That is a good point. I didn't think about it when I made the change. But it felt (to me) like the hid was more a way of making sure there were no collisions when writing the files.

If you open/extract the archive to inspect the contents I don't know how useful it is to know in which order they were created unless all the files have a similar name and in that case it would probably help to have the hid as prefix and not as suffix so you can sort by name 🤔 But I'm not a Galaxy user, so I don't know how valuable is that 😅

I slightly prefer the consistency too, but I'm happy to leave it with the hid and fallback to the encoded_id if it is missing. Should I?

[dannon]

@davelopez Well, since both of us have the slight preference for consistency, let's stick with that! :) I just wanted to make sure it was considered.

[bernt-matthias]

One more question here. My instance is on 23.2. Do you think that it's a good idea to use these commits on my instance if I want to archive histories?

[davelopez]

I guess we can backport this to 23.2. I will open a PR.