Add acquisitions table and interface for Trusted Book Providers

[ronibhakta1]

Closes #12844

Feature:
Subtask 2 #12844

Technical

Testing

Screenshot

Stakeholders

@mekarpeles @cdrini

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Note

Copilot was unable to run its full agentic suite in this review.

Adds a new “acquisitions” persistence layer to store trusted book provider metadata per (edition, provider), along with schema and tests.

Changes:

• Introduces openlibrary.core.acquisitions.Acquisition with query/upsert and edition-merge remapping logic.
• Adds acquisitions table + indexes to the core Postgres schema.
• Adds sqlite-backed unit tests for acquisitions CRUD/merge behaviors.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 6 comments.

File	Description
openlibrary/core/acquisitions.py	New model helpers for reading/upserting acquisitions and handling edition merges.
openlibrary/core/schema.sql	Adds acquisitions table and supporting indexes in the main schema.
openlibrary/tests/core/test_acquisitions.py	Adds sqlite-based tests validating acquisitions behavior.

[mekarpeles]

Thanks for the contribution, @ronibhakta1.

Copilot has been assigned for an initial review.

The linked issue (#12844) hasn't been triaged yet — triage happens on Mondays and Fridays. There are currently 73 open non-draft PRs ahead of yours.

Possible improvements for this PR

• PR description is incomplete — the Technical and Testing sections are empty. For future PRs, please follow the PR template and provide a description. Here's a draft based on the diff and linked issue:

  This PR implements subtask 2 of Open Library OPDS Registry. Trusted Book Providers (TBP) Ingestion Pipeline. #12844 (Trusted Book Providers ingestion pipeline). It adds the acquisitions table to schema.sql to store provider-specific acquisition metadata keyed on (edition_id, provider_name) with a JSON blob for prices, formats, and other provider data. The Acquisition class in openlibrary/core/acquisitions.py provides get_by_edition, get_by_work, and upsert methods, plus an update_edition_id method that handles edition merges by remapping or dropping conflicting rows. Tests in test_acquisitions.py cover the core read and upsert paths.

• Proof of testing — the Testing section is empty. Since this is a backend change with no UI, a brief note on how the tests were run (e.g., the pytest command used) would help reviewers.

PR triage checklist (maintainers / Pam)

• PR description — not empty; explains what the change does and how to verify it
• References an issue — PR body contains a #NNN reference
  • Linked issue is triaged — has a Priority: * label (not just Needs: Triage)
  • Linked issue is assigned — has at least one assignee
• Commit history clean — no WIP/fixup/conflict noise; commit messages are meaningful
• CI passing — no failing check-runs
• Test cases present — if the change touches substantive logic, test coverage exists or is explained
• Proof of testing — PR body includes a description of what was tested, a screenshot, or a video

Note

This comment was automatically generated by Pam, Open Library's Project AI Manager, on behalf of @mekarpeles. Pam is designed to provide status visibility, perform basic project management functions and relevant codebase research, and provide actionable feedback so contributors aren't left waiting.

[cdrini]

Niiiice looks great Roni! I made a few improvements, namely:

• Use (provider_name, local_id) as the unique constraint for acquisitions to allow for a provider to have multiple acquisitions for the same edition
• Remove update_edition_id; out-of-scope, should be done once edition merging is implemented
• Use modern postgres ON CONFLICT for upserting

To avoid git conflict nightmares, I'm actually going to close this one and push my changes to your aggregate PR, #12852 .

[cdrini]

Is there a reason these are ordered by default?

Suggested change

	"SELECT * FROM acquisitions WHERE edition_id=$edition_id ORDER BY provider_name",
	"SELECT * FROM acquisitions WHERE edition_id=$edition_id",

[ronibhakta1]

That will be a great help. I was expecting a few changes cause I didn't have overall edge cases understanding but covered most of them I know

[cdrini]

Actually, the rebase was pretty simple! So I'm going to go ahead and merge this one as-is, and then force push the rebase to your aggregate PR 👍 And remove the commit I added to that one :P