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

[David Davis]

Your plan sounds good to me. Especially since as @mhrivnak highlighted that
this area would be changing with repo versions.

Unless anyone disagrees, I think we should merge
https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3195.


David

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com> wrote:

> From the discussion on #2873 I remember, we discussed a lot of options. We
> should continue exploring those options because we haven't decided on the
> long term usage. My hope is that improvements in this area will be driven
> by users who can tell us more clearly about how they want to use Pulp.
>
> We already exposed these join model models because we had to do something
> for the MVP. With so many options and ways to position this usage, the
> exposing of the models was the simplest option for us to create. It meets
> the use cases as we've written them in the MVP (I think) and it took us
> almost 0 code to do it. I think to move forward right now, we should fixup
> the DELETE call and move on for now.
>
> The ideal situation (I think) would be:
>
> 1. fixup the DELETE call and continue to expose the join model
> 2. release pulp3 and get users
> 3. have them drive improvements in this area so we can design with our
> users to get this right
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 8:20 AM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20171020/63be93e8/attachment.htm>