[Pulp-dev] Pulp CLI MVP User Stories

[Bihan Zhang]

Quick correction to 1). My goal throughout the next week is to see if I can
get Tab completable LIST working.
In particular I would like the user to be able to run `pulp-cli
repositories <TAB> ` to generate a list of repositories. and `pulp-cli
repositories --repository-pk=UUID versions <TAB>` to list out possible
repository versions.
This should be possible because the cli tool that we're basing our cli off
of is aware of our REST API schema.
I would also like to get general Tab complete working, and see how
difficult it would be to add a more complex command that would require more
than 1 REST API call.

And if time permitted I will see if I can get Task polling to work.

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com> wrote:

> 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/20180523/c073832a/attachment.htm>