[Pulp-dev] Pulp CLI MVP User Stories
bizhang at redhat.com
Mon May 21 15:26:45 UTC 2018
I'm +1 to shipping a CLI out with our GA. According to our last community
survey ~47% of users used a CLI, vs ~33% using a REST API (the last ~20%
uses Katello/Sat UI/Foreman) .
I think there should be some single call operations that the CLI does
support- for example creating a pulp_python remote from a requirements.txt.
The pulp_python REST API remote endpoint expects a dictionary of projects,
and specifiers; the same information present in a requirements.txt, but it
would be inappropriate for the endpoint to only support remote creation
from a requirements.txt, since there's many other formats this information
might be present in (Pipfile, Pipfile.lock, pyproject.toml, etc)
So the REST API should be left generic, but the CLI should support parsing
these files and sending a formatted request to the endpoint.
The role of CLI should be to make workflows easier but I think for the GA
we should have minimal workflows. We should start with a 1-1 mapping for
core endpoints, with perhaps one additional 'pulp-cli quickstart' command
that will create a repository, a remote, a publisher, and a distribution
with a single command. Any additional workflow features can be added by
And plugins can ship out their own CLI features (or not) separately.
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 10:24 AM, Bryan Kearney <bkearney at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 05/21/2018 09:56 AM, David Davis wrote:
> >> that the CLI does no "single call" operations. Those are already
> > handled veyr well by httpie.
> > If a user wants for example to update an object
> > (repo/remote/distribution/etc), then they have to switch from the CLI to
> > httpie?
> I assume pulp is focused on sysadmins, yes? If so, are there other tools
> targeted at this audience that does not have a cli?
> -- bk
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pulp-dev