[Pulp-dev] proposed changes to Pulp 3 auto generated docs
Dennis Kliban
dkliban at redhat.com
Wed Jul 25 19:08:20 UTC 2018
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/ver
>>>>> sions/2.0.md#responses-definitions-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
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20180725/b11b43e0/attachment.htm>
More information about the Pulp-dev
mailing list