[Pulp-dev] Pulp CLI MVP User Stories

[Dennis Kliban]

A few of us[0] met earlier today to discuss further steps with the CLI. We
agreed on the following next steps:

1) Over the next week @bizhang is going to explore how we can add value to
coreapi-cli[1] - in particular see about adding polling for operations that
return tasks

2) We want to send a note out to pulp-list to ask users the following
questions:

- What commands or functionality in the CLI do you rely on the most?
- Are there things you wish the CLI had or did?
- Why do you use the CLI over using the REST API directly?
- Do you strictly use the CLI or do you use other things like Katello or
the REST API?
- Would you prefer a CLI or a basic web UI (that leverages something like
Django admin)?


[0] dawalker, daviddavis, bizhang, asmacdo, dkliban
[1] http://www.coreapi.org/

On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Bihan Zhang <bizhang at redhat.com> wrote:

> 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) [0].
>
> 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
> user request.
>
> And plugins can ship out their own CLI features (or not) separately.
>
> [0] https://pulpproject.org/2017/08/08/community-survey-results/
>
>
>
> 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
>> 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/20180522/9c6f1940/attachment.htm>