[Pulp-dev] creating repository version resources using a single REST endpoint

[Dennis Kliban]

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 2:39 PM, Austin Macdonald <amacdona at redhat.com>
wrote:

> I like the concept of single REST endpoint that is responsible for all the
> ways to create a RepositoryVersion, but I don't quite understand how this
> would work. Since the endpoint is purely pulpcore, how can the
> RepositoryVersionViewSet import the plugin defined tasks that correspond to
> the action specified by the user? The only way I see is to force plugin
> writers to define all their tasks as methods on the Importer or Publisher,
> which brings us back to the circular import problem.
> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3074
>
>
Plugin writers would need to define the tasks inside the tasks module of
their django app. pulpcore would then be able to discover the tasks defined
by the plugin at startup. The 'operation' could be name spaced by the
plugin name. Any tasks discovered in pulpcore would have pulpcore prepended
to the operation name. e.g.: pulpcore.sync or pulp_rpm.deep_copy

This would also address the circular import problem by moving the code that
performs a sync outside the Importer. However, this would require the
plugin writer to instantiate an Importer based on an 'href' passed in as an
argument. And only then could the importer be used to drive the API.


> Also, I think it would be a little unusual that the possible actions
> specified in the POST body to a pulpcore endpoint would vary depending on
> the plugin it is being used with. How would we document how to use this
> endpoint?
>
>
The endpoint would have a limited number of operations listed in our hosted
docs. However, the rest API docs on each Pulp installation should be able
to provide the user with a list of all available options.


> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Enable users to POST to /api/v3/repositories/123abc456/versions/ with
>> one required parameter 'operation'. This parameter would be an identifier
>> for a task Pulp would run to create a new version. Any additional
>> parameters passed in by the API user would be passed along to the task.
>>
>> pulpcore would provide the 'sync' task and the 'add_remove' task. 'sync'
>> would accept an 'importer'. 'add_remove' would accept 'remove_content' and
>> 'add_content'.
>>
>> Each plugin could provide any number of tasks for creating a repository
>> version.
>>
>> pulpcore would always create the new repository version, hand it to the
>> plugin code, and then mark it as complete after plugin code runs
>> successfully. Alleviating the plugin writer of these concern.
>>
>> REST API users would always use the same end point to create a repository
>> version. Plugin writers wouldn't have to worry about creating repository
>> versions and managing the 'complete' state.
>>
>> What do you all think?
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20180108/fe864c51/attachment.htm>