[Pulp-dev] Namespacing plugins, looking for feedback

[Tatiana Tereshchenko]

Just to clarify, the type field is not used in the endpoint construction,
so two changes described in the original e-mail are independent.

In my opinion:
 - it is possible to have type collisions.
 - it is possible to have the same endpoints (endpoint_name in a viewset).

FWIW, the endpoint collision is not unique to the master/detail models'
endpoints. A plugin, in theory, can define any endpoint they want.
Though not preventing collisions it for endpoints related to master/detail
models makes it easier to create such collision accidentally.

Tanya

On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 2:27 PM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:

> Is it possible (under the current model, without namespacing) to have type
> collisions in the database for master/detail models? Like what if two
> plugins define two Contents with the same type or two Remotes with the same
> type? This kind of leads me to believe we should namespace everything. On
> the Ansible plugin for example, I started working on a git Remote[0].
> Luckily I chose "ansible_git" as the type but I could see plugin writers
> running into problems if they are not so careful.
>
> [0]
> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_ansible/pull/38/files#diff-debb42c875c19140793de39be3696ee3
>
> David
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 4:41 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko <ttereshc at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> There is an issue [0] of colliding type names in the content summary
>> which evolved into more general namespacing problem for plugins.
>>
>> The suggested changes [1] are:
>>  1. include plugin name into the content summary
>>
>> "content_summary": {
>>     "pulp_rpm.package": 50,
>>     "pulp_rpm.errata": 2,
>>     "pulp_file.file": 5
>> }
>>
>>
>> 2. include plugin name into content endpoints
>> /api/v3/content/file/files/ --> /api/v3/content/pulp_file/files/
>> /api/v3/content/rpm/packages/ --> /api/v3/content/pulp_rpm/packages/
>> /api/v3/content/rpm/errata/ --> /api/v3/content/pulp_rpm/errata/
>> ...
>>
>> For the change #1, not only content summary output is changed but the
>> type itself in the database. If the content type is used somewhere in the
>> filters, it should be specified in that format: "plugin_name.plugin_type".
>> Does it makes sense to extend the master model and have a plugin name field
>> and a type field, instead of putting preformatted string into the type
>> field?
>>
>> For the change #2, endpoints are namespaced only for the content endpoint
>> and not for other endpoints related to master/detail models, like remotes,
>> publishers, etc. It's inconsistent, however it makes the most sense to have
>> it for content endpoints.
>>
>> Any concerns or thoughts?
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Tanya
>>
>> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4185#note-8
>> [1] https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3801
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20181217/77c08a95/attachment.htm>