Remove audbackend.checksum() and use MD5 sum

[hagenw]

Closes #254

This adds a test for #254 and fixes it by reversing the introduction of audbackend.checksum() from #245 as we shouldn't upload the checksum stored in the metadata of the parquet file, but as we did before always use the MD5 sum.

This will have no negative effect on version tracking with audb (i was wrong when stating this in audeering/audb#459). The only thing affected by uploading the MD5 sum instead of the parquet file hash is: if a user cancels an audb.publish() job, deletes the build folder, creates the table files again and starts the upload again, it will overwrite the parquet table files instead of skipping them, as their MD5 sum has changed locally. But this should be fine. If we stay with the current implementation instead, we have no way to verify if a file was uploaded/downloaded correctly as we don't store information on the actual MD5 sum.

Summary by Sourcery

Add a test for parquet file upload to Artifactory and fix the issue by reverting to using the MD5 checksum instead of the metadata checksum.

Bug Fixes:

• Fix the issue with uploading parquet files by reverting to using the MD5 checksum instead of the checksum stored in the metadata.

Tests:

• Add a test to ensure parquet files are uploaded with the correct MD5 checksum instead of the metadata checksum.

Summary by Sourcery

Revert the checksum calculation for parquet files to use the MD5 checksum instead of the metadata checksum to fix upload issues. Add a test to verify the correct checksum is used during the upload process.

Bug Fixes:

• Fix the issue with uploading parquet files by reverting to using the MD5 checksum instead of the checksum stored in the metadata.

Tests:

• Add a test to ensure parquet files are uploaded with the correct MD5 checksum instead of the metadata checksum.

[sourcery-ai]

Reviewer's Guide by Sourcery

This PR fixes an issue with parquet file uploads by reverting back to using MD5 checksums instead of parquet metadata checksums. The implementation removes the checksum() function and replaces all its usages with direct calls to audeer.md5(). A new test has been added to verify the correct handling of parquet files with checksums in Artifactory.

Sequence diagram for parquet file upload with MD5 checksum

sequenceDiagram
    actor User
    participant Interface
    participant Artifactory
    participant Audeer

    User->>Interface: Upload parquet file
    Interface->>Audeer: Calculate MD5 checksum
    Audeer-->>Interface: Return MD5 checksum
    Interface->>Artifactory: Upload file with MD5 checksum
    Artifactory-->>Interface: Confirm upload
    Interface-->>User: Upload successful

Loading

File-Level Changes

Change	Details	Files
Remove custom checksum function and revert to using MD5 checksums	Remove the checksum() function that handled special cases for parquet files Replace all utils.checksum() calls with audeer.md5()	audbackend/core/utils.py audbackend/core/backend/base.py audbackend/core/backend/filesystem.py audbackend/core/interface/versioned.py tests/bad_file_system.py
Add test infrastructure for parquet file handling	Create a new fixture that generates a test parquet file with metadata checksum Add test case to verify correct handling of parquet files in Artifactory	tests/conftest.py tests/test_backend_artifactory.py
Clean up documentation and configuration	Remove audformat from intersphinx mapping Remove test_utils.py file	docs/conf.py tests/test_utils.py

Assessment against linked issues

Issue	Objective	Addressed	Explanation
#254	Fix Artifactory backend refusing to upload parquet files due to checksum mismatch	✅

Possibly linked issues

• Artifactory backend refuses to upload parquet files #254: PR fixes the Artifactory upload issue by reverting to MD5 checksum, directly addressing the issue.

---

Tips and commands

Interacting with Sourcery

• Trigger a new review: Comment @sourcery-ai review on the pull request.
• Continue discussions: Reply directly to Sourcery's review comments.
• Generate a GitHub issue from a review comment: Ask Sourcery to create an
  issue from a review comment by replying to it.
• Generate a pull request title: Write @sourcery-ai anywhere in the pull
  request title to generate a title at any time.
• Generate a pull request summary: Write @sourcery-ai summary anywhere in
  the pull request body to generate a PR summary at any time. You can also use
  this command to specify where the summary should be inserted.

Customizing Your Experience

Access your dashboard to:

• Enable or disable review features such as the Sourcery-generated pull request
  summary, the reviewer's guide, and others.
• Change the review language.
• Add, remove or edit custom review instructions.
• Adjust other review settings.

Getting Help

• Contact our support team for questions or feedback.
• Visit our documentation for detailed guides and information.
• Keep in touch with the Sourcery team by following us on X/Twitter, LinkedIn or GitHub.

[sourcery-ai]

Hey @hagenw - I've reviewed your changes and they look great!

Here's what I looked at during the review

• 🟢 General issues: all looks good
• 🟢 Security: all looks good
• 🟢 Testing: all looks good
• 🟢 Complexity: all looks good
• 🟢 Documentation: all looks good

---

Sourcery is free for open source - if you like our reviews please consider sharing them ✨

• X
• Mastodon
• LinkedIn
• Facebook

_{Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 100.0%. Comparing base (1b1177d) to head (798b82b).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
audbackend/__init__.py	100.0% <ø> (ø)
audbackend/core/backend/base.py	100.0% <100.0%> (ø)
audbackend/core/backend/filesystem.py	100.0% <100.0%> (ø)
audbackend/core/interface/versioned.py	100.0% <ø> (ø)
audbackend/core/utils.py	100.0% <ø> (ø)

[sourcery-ai]

Hey @hagenw - I've reviewed your changes and they look great!

Here's what I looked at during the review

• 🟢 General issues: all looks good
• 🟢 Security: all looks good
• 🟢 Testing: all looks good
• 🟢 Complexity: all looks good
• 🟢 Documentation: all looks good

---

Sourcery is free for open source - if you like our reviews please consider sharing them ✨

• X
• Mastodon
• LinkedIn
• Facebook

_{Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.}

[ChristianGeng]

I only had a minor issue concerning possible developer confusion
relating the terminology of md5sum and checksum.

This is resolved as good as it can get. So, approval is being given.