<div dir="ltr"><div>I think the main confusion I have is that we call it validation. Semantically, I'd expect the validation operation to complain if something is invalid and to pass if everything is fine.</div><div>The solution [0] also implies that I think:</div><div> Raises:<br></div><div> django.core.exceptions.ValidationError: if the repository is invalid<br></div><div><br></div><div>As I mentioned below I think a plugin needs to have an ability to change the content of a repo version, it sounds more than just validation to me. Let me know if I misunderstand something or misuse any terms.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">I keep thinking these use cases are for copy not sync, because only in the copy case is the plugin writer's code not already involved.</blockquote><div>I think any use case that modifies repo version in some way is important here - sync, copy, upload, removal of content.</div><div>It's just happened that for sync we already have a mechanism for plugins to influence the result, however it can likely be simplified and reuse what will be implemented for the story [0] under discussion.</div><div><br></div><div>Tanya</div><div><br></div><div>[0] <a href="https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3541#note-3">https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3541#note-3</a></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 11:01 PM Brian Bouterse <<a href="mailto:bmbouter@redhat.com">bmbouter@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:55 PM David Davis <<a href="mailto:daviddavis@redhat.com" target="_blank">daviddavis@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>I think @bmbouter's solution could handle the first example of checking RPMs against a specific key.</div><div><br></div><div>The second example is trickier though because the validation would have to know which module is being removed in order to know which packages to remove from the repo. This is because the packages could exist in the repo independently of the module. I think it'd have to have the list of additions/removals in order to handle that use case.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It would have reference to the repo_version being created, so I think it would have the RepositoryVersion.removed queryset to inspect. I think this is mainly useful for copy operations at which point the copy endpoint may be a better tool for features like plugin-provided dependency resolution versus the generic copy operations in core.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I keep thinking these use cases are for copy not sync, because only in the copy case is the plugin writer's code not already involved.<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>David<br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 12:55 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko <<a href="mailto:ttereshc@redhat.com" target="_blank">ttereshc@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">The solution proposed in #3541 looks good for validation purposes.<div>My understanding of the problem is that a plugin needs to apply some logic and decide which content to keep and which content to remove at repo version creation time and perform these changes.</div><div>Examples:</div><div> - add to a repo version only RPMs signed with a specific key</div><div> - removal of the moduled content should automagically remove related RPMs from a repo version.</div><div><br></div><div>In theory, for the examples above, if we have validation only, user can be forced to prepare perfect add/remove requests, however I think it won't be a good user experience.</div><div><br></div><div>Can it be done in the same way as the suggestion for validation? Just if it makes sense for plugin to "fix" repo version itself, they will do it, otherwise validation error can be raised. What do you think?</div><div><br></div><div>Tanya</div><div><div></div><div><br></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 4:46 PM Dennis Kliban <<a href="mailto:dkliban@redhat.com" target="_blank">dkliban@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">The plan outlined in 3541 solves the problem in a way that gives plugin writers a lot of control. +1 to implementing it.<br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 12:23 PM David Davis <<a href="mailto:daviddavis@redhat.com" target="_blank">daviddavis@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">We have a blocker for Pulp 3.0 GA[0] that we need to address soon in order to let plugins leverage it in their upcoming GA releases. It involves allowing plugin writers to validate content in a repo version. It's somewhat related to validating uniqueness in a repo version[1] except there are cases other than uniqueness that plugins might want to handle. One example might be a case where we want to prevent a user from adding a docker tag that points to a manifest outside a repo from getting added to the repo. I'm not sure if this is an actual example but it gives you an idea that there might be other non-unique validation plugin writers might want to add.<div><br></div><div>Brian proposed a solution on 3541 that I think solves the problem[2]. I was hoping to maybe get some feedback on it so we could proceed by October 9. </div><div><div><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>[0] <a href="https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3541" target="_blank">https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3541</a></div><div>[1] <a href="https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5008" target="_blank">https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5008</a></div><div>[2] <a href="https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3541" target="_blank">https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3541</a></div><div><br></div><div>David<br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div> _______________________________________________<br> Pulp-dev mailing list<br> <a href="mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com" target="_blank">Pulp-dev@redhat.com</a><br> <a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev</a><br> </blockquote></div> _______________________________________________<br> Pulp-dev mailing list<br> <a href="mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com" target="_blank">Pulp-dev@redhat.com</a><br> <a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev</a><br> </blockquote></div> </blockquote></div> _______________________________________________<br> Pulp-dev mailing list<br> <a href="mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com" target="_blank">Pulp-dev@redhat.com</a><br> <a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev</a><br> </blockquote></div></div> </blockquote></div></div></div>