[Pulp-dev] proposed changes to Pulp 3 auto generated docs
Bihan Zhang
bizhang at redhat.com
Fri Aug 3 20:05:14 UTC 2018
I've opened a PR that implements a new field that will resolve and display
both _href and id.
https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3575
Take a look and let me know what y'all think.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 2:33 PM, Robin Chan <rchan at redhat.com> wrote:
> I really appreciate recent trend on our mailing lists that when
> conversations are happening on irc or in meetings, that updates are
> reported back to the relevant thread. I like that individuals are taking
> the initiative to have that real time communication and work out concerns
> in a timely manner, and I really like that everyone else can get caught up.
> This supports the timezone- diverse pulp community as well as time away for
> summer travel. I personally have found this update and others like it on
> other threads here in pulp-land to be very helpful.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:13 PM, Bihan Zhang <bizhang at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> bmbouter, dkliban, daviddavis, jsherril and I just chatted about this in
>> person. Here are the minutes from that meeting:
>>
>> We have tools (API, docs, bindings+3rd party applications, CLI) that
>> needs to refer to references somehow, and we need to figure out whether
>> these references should be the href or a combination of the href and the id.
>> Dkliban has opened a PR updating the schemas to only use the hrefs, but
>> this schema isn't valid. [0]
>> Bmbouter has proposed some solutions to using both hrefs and ids, and
>> option 2 is by far the most popular [1]
>>
>> If we go the hybrid href and id route there are some concerns:
>> - How do we serialize createdresource that can be either publications
>> or repositoryversion?
>> - additionalproperties field in openapi should take care of it
>> - repository has to be referenced with 2 parameters (repo id and
>> version number) instead of just an id like all other resources, this isn't
>> consistent
>> - maybe we should unnest repoversion, this also allows us to
>> search for content across repository versoins
>> - probably should leave as is, since it works, and can be
>> described in openapiv2
>> - we need to restructure our API, and this could be time consuming
>> - changes needed to hyperlinked related field, created resource
>> schema, content added api endpoint, need to validate openapi schema is
>> compliant for all requests and responses
>>
>> If we merge dkliban's PR, and use only hrefs there's also some concerns:
>> - noncompliant schema
>> - we aren't in a position to ship and support the tool chain for
>> a noncompliant schema, unlike google
>> - following spec gives some peace of mind for future support
>>
>> We decided on the following action items:
>> - bizhang will take some time to write out a hybrid href and id POC
>> next week
>> - dkliban will reach out to openapi, to see what the status is of the
>> href work, and maybe get an estimation of when that will be accepted into
>> the specification
>>
>>
>> [0] https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3561#issuecomment-407496845
>> [1] https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3561#issuecomment-407888652
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 4:43 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm exploring the changes required to use IDs and hrefs on the PR here:
>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3561#issuecomment-407888652
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 4:24 PM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I know we don’t support things like accepting hrefs as references to
>>>> resources but if I remember correctly we do return hrefs alongside ids in
>>>> responses in Pulp 2. Is that not correct?
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 4:17 PM Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't think we support both hrefs and ids in Pulp 2. The Pulp 2 REST
>>>>> API does not accept HREFs as references to resources. In Pulp 2's REST API
>>>>> we do not even have resources that have relationships to other resources.
>>>>> The relationships between resources are established by nesting them under
>>>>> one another. e.g.: /pulp/api/v2/repositories/<repo_id>/ and
>>>>> /pulp/api/v2/repositories/<repo_id>/importers/<importer_id>/. In Pulp
>>>>> 2, if a user wanted to reference content units in a request, the API
>>>>> requires writing a filter that uses Mongodb syntax.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pulp 3's REST API has a resources called Task that has a
>>>>> 'created_resource' attribute. This resource is a reference to either a
>>>>> repository version or a publication at this time. Pulp 3's REST API also
>>>>> supports users specifying references to content units that should be added
>>>>> or removed from a repository. These needs do not exist in Pulp 2's REST
>>>>> API.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 3:55 PM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Correct me if I’m wrong but Pulp 2 supported @bizhang’s model of
>>>>>> providing both hrefs and ids. Was that a source of problems or complaints
>>>>>> by Pulp 2 users?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 3:08 PM Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For everyone following along, the conversation has moved to Github -
>>>>>>> on the PR[0] with the proposed changes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [0] https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3561
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:15 AM, Bihan Zhang <bizhang at redhat.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> @dkliban I've tried out your PR and left a question:
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3561#issuecomment-407425172
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Won't it be problematic with the openapi definitions causing us to
>>>>>>>>> have two schemas? Accepting the data in two forms is one thing, but using
>>>>>>>>> openapi to describe it both ways is something I don't understand well. Are
>>>>>>>>> we going to ship and test two?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think we'll be defining the data in two different ways in
>>>>>>>> openapi. We need to pass a {repository identifier} to /sync/, openapi
>>>>>>>> expects a string, what we do with that string is up to us. (In the
>>>>>>>> following example the format is "uri" but this isn't actually used for
>>>>>>>> validation at all, since it's not defined by the swagger specification [0],
>>>>>>>> we can also clear out the format field, since format is only there to
>>>>>>>> support documentation needs)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - RepositorySyncURL:
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> - required:
>>>>>>>> [
>>>>>>>> - "repository"
>>>>>>>> ],
>>>>>>>> - type: "object",
>>>>>>>> - properties:
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> - repository:
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> - title: "Repository",
>>>>>>>> - description: "A URI of the repository to be
>>>>>>>> synchronized.",
>>>>>>>> - type: "string",
>>>>>>>> - format: "uri"
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>> },
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can see why some users would want to refer to things in the api
>>>>>>>>> using ID not an href. I think about the case that when calling publish and
>>>>>>>>> referring to a RepositoryVersion with id=827561, num=3, and for
>>>>>>>>> repository=1234. With an ID alternately accepted, you could call publish
>>>>>>>>> and submit repo_version=827561 instead of repo_version='repositories/1234/version/3/'.
>>>>>>>>> I can see that benefit, but it comes with downsides. Saving/storing a url I
>>>>>>>>> know feels a little strange, but I do see several upsides...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Doing it only with hrefs, ensures those benefits (nice recap btw)
>>>>>>>>> will always be true. Having to submit the references using something like
>>>>>>>>> 'repositories/1234/version/3/' will cause any client to store them that
>>>>>>>>> way. I think that's a good thing because someone troubleshooting their
>>>>>>>>> scripts or in katello's db will instead have 'repositories/1234/version/3/',
>>>>>>>>> which they can directly use with HTTP. I think this is valuable. Otherwise
>>>>>>>>> they would have repo version 827561, which now they have to do extra work
>>>>>>>>> to start interacting with that object via HTTP. Storing urls removes the
>>>>>>>>> "templating" step from the troubleshooter's responsibilities so we're
>>>>>>>>> making their job easier. Spacewise, I don't think the clients benefit
>>>>>>>>> hugely from storing 827561 instead of 'repositories/1234/version/3/',
>>>>>>>>> but humans do.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why don't we provide the ability to use both href and id as
>>>>>>>> identifiers, and katello can choose the route that is right for them based
>>>>>>>> on the points you bring up?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't know much about the CLI, but if we want to enable a
>>>>>>>>> specific user experience, I think we can find a way to make that work.
>>>>>>>>> Overall I think users should be able to specify things in the most
>>>>>>>>> intuitive way possible, and I don't see how API data formats directly
>>>>>>>>> influence that. For example I think referring to a repository by it's name
>>>>>>>>> is the most natural; it's more natural than 1234 or repositories/1234.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1 the CLI can resolve name to identifiers (either id or href), so
>>>>>>>> I'm not too concerned with that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [0] https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/blob/master
>>>>>>>> /versions/2.0.md#data-types
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 9:51 PM, Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've made a work in progress PR[0] that demonstrates the changes I
>>>>>>>>> was suggesting.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [0] https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3561
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Brian Bouterse <
>>>>>>>>> bbouters at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Having two ways to refer to objects in the API makes me nervous.
>>>>>>>>>> I have some questions/concerns/ideas. I'm also interested to see what
>>>>>>>>>> dkliban's bindings produce in terms of a resolution of the swagger issues.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Won't it be problematic with the openapi definitions causing us
>>>>>>>>>> to have two schemas? Accepting the data in two forms is one thing, but
>>>>>>>>>> using openapi to describe it both ways is something I don't understand
>>>>>>>>>> well. Are we going to ship and test two?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I can see why some users would want to refer to things in the api
>>>>>>>>>> using ID not an href. I think about the case that when calling publish and
>>>>>>>>>> referring to a RepositoryVersion with id=827561, num=3, and for
>>>>>>>>>> repository=1234. With an ID alternately accepted, you could call publish
>>>>>>>>>> and submit repo_version=827561 instead of repo_version='repositories/1234/version/3/'.
>>>>>>>>>> I can see that benefit, but it comes with downsides. Saving/storing a url I
>>>>>>>>>> know feels a little strange, but I do see several upsides...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Doing it only with hrefs, ensures those benefits (nice recap btw)
>>>>>>>>>> will always be true. Having to submit the references using something like
>>>>>>>>>> 'repositories/1234/version/3/' will cause any client to store them that
>>>>>>>>>> way. I think that's a good thing because someone troubleshooting their
>>>>>>>>>> scripts or in katello's db will instead have 'repositories/1234/version/3/',
>>>>>>>>>> which they can directly use with HTTP. I think this is valuable. Otherwise
>>>>>>>>>> they would have repo version 827561, which now they have to do extra work
>>>>>>>>>> to start interacting with that object via HTTP. Storing urls removes the
>>>>>>>>>> "templating" step from the troubleshooter's responsibilities so we're
>>>>>>>>>> making their job easier. Spacewise, I don't think the clients benefit
>>>>>>>>>> hugely from storing 827561 instead of 'repositories/1234/version/3/',
>>>>>>>>>> but humans do.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't know much about the CLI, but if we want to enable a
>>>>>>>>>> specific user experience, I think we can find a way to make that work.
>>>>>>>>>> Overall I think users should be able to specify things in the most
>>>>>>>>>> intuitive way possible, and I don't see how API data formats directly
>>>>>>>>>> influence that. For example I think referring to a repository by it's name
>>>>>>>>>> is the most natural; it's more natural than 1234 or repositories/1234.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Daniel Alley <dalley at redhat.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Keep in mind that as of yesterday, unless we revert the change,
>>>>>>>>>>> we are using Integers IDs instead of UUIDs
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3549
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:57 PM, Bihan Zhang <bizhang at redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Dennis Kliban <
>>>>>>>>>>>> dkliban at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was asked on IRC to state what problems the proposed changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are trying to address. There are two problems I see with the current
>>>>>>>>>>>>> OpenAPI 2.0 schema Pulp's REST API provides.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - The path parameters in the schema don't reflect the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters our users should be using for identifying the resources
>>>>>>>>>>>>> available via REST API.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not convinced that we should use hrefs as the sole
>>>>>>>>>>>> identifiers for the resources.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Here are the reasons I see that we use hrefs as identifiers in
>>>>>>>>>>>> a REST API context:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Each href provides full context into the resource it
>>>>>>>>>>>> identifies. When given a href you would know exactly which resource it is
>>>>>>>>>>>> referencing and would never run into the issue of: what is this {uuid}
>>>>>>>>>>>> because you know it is a 'repositories/{uuid}'
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. discoverability, you know exactly how to access
>>>>>>>>>>>> resources from hitting the root url (and in a webui can just click)
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. You would not need to construct urls from templates
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But things are different if we look at it from a
>>>>>>>>>>>> bindings/client context. The difference is mainly due to how
>>>>>>>>>>>> discoverability is done: in the REST API context the user has little prior
>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge to what resources are available, and how to access theses
>>>>>>>>>>>> resoruces. But the bindings/client are generated from the schema, which
>>>>>>>>>>>> defines exactly how resources are structured, and what the context of each
>>>>>>>>>>>> {uuid} is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Given an {uuid} the client/bindings knows exactly what
>>>>>>>>>>>> resource this {uuid} refers to. With hrefs there would be redundant
>>>>>>>>>>>> information pulp.repositories('repositories/{uuid}') (why do I
>>>>>>>>>>>> need to specify repositories twice?)
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Discoverability is done with the schema which contains
>>>>>>>>>>>> all the information about available resources/endpoints
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. URL construction is done by the client, so the user
>>>>>>>>>>>> would also never need to do any url construction themselves (unless we
>>>>>>>>>>>> continue to force href only identifiers, in which case they might have to
>>>>>>>>>>>> do some url construction to pass as arguments)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think hrefs and uuid identifiers are mutually
>>>>>>>>>>>> exclusive. I propose that we extend HyperlinkedRelatedFields to accept
>>>>>>>>>>>> either href or uuid, and map these HyperlinkedRelatedFields to each other
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the schema with openapi definition objects [0].
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [0] https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI
>>>>>>>>>>>> -Specification/blob/master/versions/2.0.md#responses-definit
>>>>>>>>>>>> ions-object
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - The path parameters don't have a description in the schema.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to updating the schema descriptions for these parameters
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do others agree with these problem statements?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:31 AM, Dennis Kliban <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dkliban at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am working on improving the OpenAPI 2.0 schema for Pulp 3.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to get some input on the improvements I am proposing. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schema is used to generate our REST API documentation as well as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bindings with swagger-codegen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The docs generated from our current schema look something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GET /repositories/{repository_pk}/versions/{number}/content/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://docs.pulpproject.org/en/3.0/nightly/integration-guide/rest-api/index.html#get--repositories-repository_pk-versions-number-content->
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parameters:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - *number* (*integer*) –
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - *repository_pk* (*string*) –
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Status Codes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - 200 OK
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.2.1>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> –
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since Pulp identifies resources using their HREFs, I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing that the schema produce documentation that states:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GET /{repository_version_href}/content/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parameters:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - *repository_version_href* (string) – HREF for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repository version
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Status Codes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - 200 OK
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.2.1>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> –
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts? Ideas? All feedback is welcome. Thank you!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20180803/bab6c8c1/attachment.htm>
More information about the Pulp-dev
mailing list