[Pulp-dev] Many-to-many joins in the API

[David Davis]

After reading through the updating relationships section of the JSON API
spec [1], I kind of agree with @jortel that we shouldn’t expose the join
model unless it provides extra fields besides simply joining two models.
Also, it might be worth adding a “content_ids” field that can be used when
updating repositories (see [2]).

By the way, I also saw there was a django-rest-framework-json-api package
[3]. Might be worth considering.

[1] http://jsonapi.org/format/#crud-updating-relationships
[2] http://jsonapi.org/format/#crud-updating-resource-relationships
[3] https://github.com/django-json-api/django-rest-framework-json-api


David

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 12:22 AM, Michael Hrivnak <mhrivnak at redhat.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Exposing the RepoContent model via REST API leaves us with the most
>> flexibility in the future. We decided on this design in issue 2873[0].
>>
>> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2873
>>
>
> FWIW my read of #2873 is that we discussed a lot of different design ideas
> and eventually agreed that one of them had previously been implemented. I
> don't think we found agreement on what the design should be long-term.
>
> --
>
> Michael Hrivnak
>
> Principal Software Engineer, RHCE
>
> Red Hat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20171019/b1d0de63/attachment.htm>