Sync up unique cache paths for Singularity images with cwltool

[adamnovak]

This and common-workflow-language/cwltool#2284 should make cwltool and cwl-docker-extract agree on what filenames to use for SIF images, even when the image names are unusual.

They should agree for everything they both support, which is Docker-format specifiers with and without tags. cwl-docker-extract doesn't support Singularity-isms like direct SIF file references or docker:// URIs even when run in Singularity mode.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 80.95238% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 37.79%. Comparing base (a466f42) to head (e980f78).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/cwl_utils/tests/test_image_puller.py	76.47%	2 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #433      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   37.77%   37.79%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          50       51       +1     
  Lines       36760    36777      +17     
  Branches     9531     9533       +2     
==========================================
+ Hits        13886    13899      +13     
- Misses      19941    19943       +2     
- Partials     2933     2935       +2     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[adamnovak]

I can't figure out how to run just the tests I wrote here and lint just for one Python, so I can run the tests locally in a reasonable amount of time.

[adamnovak]

Looks like it's tox -e py314-unit -- src/cwl_utils/tests/test_image_puller.py and tox -e py314-lint.

[mr-c]

Hey @adamnovak ! Thank you for this and the linked PR. I worry that this will cause existing stored images to be ignored. Any idea on how we can diverge less from the previously naming scheme?

[adamnovak]

One problem that's being solved here is name collisions: it's possible with the previous naming scheme to have two distinct images (mostly pairs like a/b_c and a_b/c) share a cache key.

The obvious way to re-use existing cached images would be to look and see if the files already exist under the old scheme. Maybe that's OK even if there were possible collisions, since we won't create any new collisions and if people have images cached they must have been working.

[mr-c]

The obvious way to re-use existing cached images would be to look and see if the files already exist under the old scheme.

yes, please and thank you