[Pulp-dev] Content paths in Pulp 3

Tue Apr 10 15:50:04 UTC 2018

This change highlights a subtle related issue, which is the plurality of
endpoints. [0]

*v3/content/<type>/*

Here, the "type" seems to refer to the plugin, which is "file". This
implies the false assumption that there is only one content type per plugin.

*v3/content/file/*

The namespace plan highlights the problem.

*v3/content/<plugin>/<type>/*

The context is subtly shifted. The "plugin" is file, which is singular, but
the "type" refers to FileContent, which is an object and should be plural.

*v3/content/file/files/*

[0]:
https://docs.pulpproject.org/en/3.0/nightly/contributing/3.0-development/rest-api.html#rest-api-guidelines

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:38 AM, Austin Macdonald <amacdona at redhat.com>
wrote:

> If ya'll don't mind leaving out v3/content/<plugin>/ endpoints, then I
> think we are all set. https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3472 should be ready
> to  be groomed. Since I updated with the suggested implementation, would
> one of you mind marking it groomed?
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 9:03 AM, Austin Macdonald <amacdona at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 8:20 AM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I’m imagining v3/content/rpm/ returning all the content types for the
>>> rpm plugin (rpm, errata, package groups, etc) and thinking that will be
>>> very strange and awkward.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, that is what it would do. I don't know if anyone would need that, my
>> point was that the url structure would imply that you *could* make this
>> call. We don't currently implement v3/content though, so maybe this isn't a
>> big deal.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 8:13 AM, Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Austin Macdonald <amacdona at redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've updated the issue https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3472 to reflect
>>>>> the current consensus.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I have some other points I'd like to discuss before we move
>>>>> on.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Implied endpoint:*
>>>>> v3/content/ansible/roles/ implies that there is a v3/content/ansible/.
>>>>> Even though this does not exist, it could, but it is a little awkward.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think this endpoint needs to exist. What use case does it
>>>> support?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Implent v3/content/ansible/:
>>>>>
>>>>>    1. Create a model viewset and serializer for the ansible level:
>>>>>       1. class AnsibleContent(core.plugin.models.Content)
>>>>>       2. class AnsibleContentSerializer(core.
>>>>>       plugin.serializers.ContentSerializer)
>>>>>       3. class AnsibleContentViewSet(core.plu
>>>>>       gin.viewsets.ContentViewSet)
>>>>>          1. endpoint = "ansible"
>>>>>       2. Make the Role model, VS, and Serializer inherit from the
>>>>>    AnsibleContent Model, VS, and Serializer
>>>>>
>>>>> The end result is that v3/content/ansible/ will return all Ansible
>>>>> content units, including Roles. v3/content/ansible/roles/ will only return
>>>>> Roles.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Publishers and Remotes*
>>>>> The above workflow makes sense and is useful if there are multiple
>>>>> units, but for the File plugin, this pattern adds an endpoint and 3 classes
>>>>> to the Content. If we want to be consistent and apply this to Remotes and
>>>>> Publishers, this is 3 useless endpoints and 9 extra classes. (These classes
>>>>> are simple, even if they are extraneous, conceptually)
>>>>>
>>>>> *IMO*
>>>>> I think we should document all of this in the plugin docs. For single
>>>>> type (and single remote, and single publisher) plugins, it will make more
>>>>> sense not to add an extra namespace. If we document how to add the extra
>>>>> namespace and when/why plugins should, that will be sufficient. Promoting
>>>>> consistency over simplicity in this case seems too far.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Or...*
>>>>> We could alter the Master/Detail code. I only have vague ideas about
>>>>> how to do this, but Master/Detail would essentially become
>>>>> Master/Plugin/Detail. This seems "right", but there isn't as much gain here
>>>>> as you might think. If we did it this, plugins would be required to
>>>>> namespace, and would be still be required to make all those extra classes.
>>>>> The only practical difference is that the AnsibleRoleViewSet.endpoint =
>>>>> "roles" instead of "ansible/roles". Either way, the endpoint would be
>>>>> v3/content/ansible/roles/
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 10:25 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 to option 1. It's consistent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Option 1 is the most consistent. +1 to option 1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Austin Macdonald <
>>>>>>> amacdona at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IMO:
>>>>>>>> We should suggest v3/content/<plugin>/<type>/. [Proposal 1] We
>>>>>>>> should mention the other options with the pros, cons in the plugin writer
>>>>>>>> docs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 10:54 AM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3407
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The correct link is: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3472
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/20180410/693261d8/attachment.htm>