[Pulp-dev] Namespacing plugins, looking for feedback

[Ina Panova]

+1 to namespace master/detail as well.
+1 to Brian's suggestion to try.

--------
Regards,

Ina Panova
Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc.

"Do not go where the path may lead,
 go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."


On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 12:15 AM Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com> wrote:

> +1 to namespacing all Master/Detail objects (Remotes, Publishers, etc).
> Namespacing will increase consistency w/ the user experience and will avoid
> plugin-to-plugin naming collisions. @ttereshc +1 to the url changes and
> content summary changes you've described.
>
> I think it would be ideal if the app specified its 'label' attribute on
> the PulpPluginAppconfig subclass, e.g here in pulp_file
> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_file/blob/24881314372b9c1c505ff687c15238126b261afa/pulp_file/app/__init__.py#L10
> Then the Model for, e.g. the FileContent would have the second portion of
> the string 'file' as an example and Master/Detail would assemble them.
>
> Is this implementation how you imagined it?
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:29 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko <ttereshc at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Just to clarify, the type field is not used in the endpoint construction,
>> so two changes described in the original e-mail are independent.
>>
>> In my opinion:
>>  - it is possible to have type collisions.
>>  - it is possible to have the same endpoints (endpoint_name in a viewset).
>>
>> FWIW, the endpoint collision is not unique to the master/detail models'
>> endpoints. A plugin, in theory, can define any endpoint they want.
>> Though not preventing collisions it for endpoints related to
>> master/detail models makes it easier to create such collision accidentally.
>>
>> Tanya
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 2:27 PM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Is it possible (under the current model, without namespacing) to have
>>> type collisions in the database for master/detail models? Like what if two
>>> plugins define two Contents with the same type or two Remotes with the same
>>> type? This kind of leads me to believe we should namespace everything. On
>>> the Ansible plugin for example, I started working on a git Remote[0].
>>> Luckily I chose "ansible_git" as the type but I could see plugin writers
>>> running into problems if they are not so careful.
>>>
>>> [0]
>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_ansible/pull/38/files#diff-debb42c875c19140793de39be3696ee3
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 4:41 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko <
>>> ttereshc at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is an issue [0] of colliding type names in the content summary
>>>> which evolved into more general namespacing problem for plugins.
>>>>
>>>> The suggested changes [1] are:
>>>>  1. include plugin name into the content summary
>>>>
>>>> "content_summary": {
>>>>     "pulp_rpm.package": 50,
>>>>     "pulp_rpm.errata": 2,
>>>>     "pulp_file.file": 5
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2. include plugin name into content endpoints
>>>> /api/v3/content/file/files/ --> /api/v3/content/pulp_file/files/
>>>> /api/v3/content/rpm/packages/ --> /api/v3/content/pulp_rpm/packages/
>>>> /api/v3/content/rpm/errata/ --> /api/v3/content/pulp_rpm/errata/
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> For the change #1, not only content summary output is changed but the
>>>> type itself in the database. If the content type is used somewhere in the
>>>> filters, it should be specified in that format: "plugin_name.plugin_type".
>>>> Does it makes sense to extend the master model and have a plugin name field
>>>> and a type field, instead of putting preformatted string into the type
>>>> field?
>>>>
>>>> For the change #2, endpoints are namespaced only for the content
>>>> endpoint and not for other endpoints related to master/detail models, like
>>>> remotes, publishers, etc. It's inconsistent, however it makes the most
>>>> sense to have it for content endpoints.
>>>>
>>>> Any concerns or thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> Tanya
>>>>
>>>> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4185#note-8
>>>> [1] https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3801
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/20181218/079451c4/attachment.htm>