[Pulp-dev] Namespacing plugins, looking for feedback

David Davis daviddavis at redhat.com
Wed Dec 19 18:04:34 UTC 2018


Not necessarily. I think the way it is now is a bit less magical than just
using the class name to generate type so +1 from me.

David


On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 12:18 PM Daniel Alley <dalley at redhat.com> wrote:

> David, was that a vote to make it explicit?
>
> I would regard this as fairly intuitive as far as "magic-ness" goes,
> acceptable from the user POV in my opinion.  And if Django is explicitly
> trying to support this functionality and relies on it working properly, and
> has a unittest for it going forwards, then I'm fairly confident it won't be
> too fragile.  My vote is +1.
>
> My only concern (and it's not a major one) is that a plugin that needed to
> be renamed might have problems with this.  But I think that would be
> resolvable with a migration.
>
> Tanya, will we need to remove the workaround once Django 2.2 comes out?
> If so, we should file a Refactor task for it.
>
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:39 AM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:31 AM Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> There is also an issue w/ my suggestion in that it's highly magical. The
>>> class name is likely going to go through a case mutation and if not it's
>>> going to be finicky in terms of its case. So now I'm thinking the plugin
>>> writer should have to define it to keep it simple and explicit (not
>>> implicit and magical).
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:27 AM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Would it be possible to default to class name but let plugin writers
>>>> override this? I would imagine in some cases plugin writers might want to
>>>> change the name (eg cases where you can't use type as the class name like
>>>> File).
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:23 AM Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:07 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko <
>>>>> ttereshc at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Brian,
>>>>>> the current PR [0] does exactly what you describe, it uses label
>>>>>> which is taken from the plugin subclass of PulpPluginAppconfig + TYPE
>>>>>> defined on the detail model.
>>>>>> FWIW, there is an option to use plugin class name and not a plugin
>>>>>> writer defined TYPE, e.g. pulp_file.filecontent, pulp_rpm.package,
>>>>>> pulp_rpm.updaterecord, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>> +1 to using the classname. Having the plugin class name used would
>>>>> allow the user to not repeat themselves as much. I think it's likely the
>>>>> class name == TYPE in almost all cases. The plugin writer would have 1 less
>>>>> requirement on them at Content model definition time and that helps achieve
>>>>> the "less burden on plugin writers" goal for pulp.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeff, to answer your questions:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. why do all the plugins begin with "pulp_"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is how django app label is defined in every plugin so far, see
>>>>>> pulp_file case [1].
>>>>>> Whatever is defined there is used as a plugin name.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. can the plugin name get pre-pended when it's loaded by core?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I lean toward TYPE=<plugin>.<type>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just to clarify, there is a class arttriburte `TYPE` and there is a
>>>>>> `type` field on a model. I guess you suggest type = <plugin>.<TYPE>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can probably do it on a master model in the save method [2], just
>>>>>> initially the change was proposed for Content models only.
>>>>>> If we decide to namespace all master/detail objects, I agree we can
>>>>>> do it n a more generic way, than just redefine __init__ on a specific
>>>>>> class.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tanya
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [0]  https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3801
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_file/blob/24881314372b9c1c505ff687c15238126b261afa/pulp_file/app/__init__.py#L10
>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp/blob/master/pulpcore/app/models/base.py#L76-L83
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 12:58 PM Ina Panova <ipanova at redhat.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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/20181219/4eaae8b9/attachment.htm>


More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list