[Pulp-dev] proposed changes to Pulp 3 auto generated docs
David Davis
daviddavis at redhat.com
Wed Jul 25 20:24:22 UTC 2018
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-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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/c2234a5c/attachment.htm>
More information about the Pulp-dev
mailing list