[Pulp-dev] Removing PublishedArtifact?

Brian Bouterse bbouters at redhat.com
Wed Sep 19 18:26:09 UTC 2018


I agree. +1. I revised the story to include the Publication attribute
pass_through which is a Boolean and defaults to False, so the feature is
disabled by default.

Sound ok?
https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4020

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 2:04 PM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:

> What about the case where a plugin publishes a subset of content from the
> repo version? Then the content app might match something it’s not supposed
> to.
>
> I think @jortel mentioned having an option on the publication to pass
> through requests to the repo version if there’s no published artifact. That
> seems safer.
>
> David
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 1:54 PM Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Thank you for all this feedback. I'm convinced that we should leave
>> PublishedArtifact and PublishedMetadata as is w.r.t ticket #4020. I've
>> revised it as such.
>>
>> For the plugin writer I'm working with, they do want to have the
>> ContentArtifact.relative_path be the final repository layout. So now the
>> scope of work for #4020 is only to extend the content app to search
>> ContentArtifact.relative_path before returning the 404 if no
>> PublishedArtifact or PublishedMetadata objects match for that publication.
>>
>> What about doing that? Also I'm kind of hoping to deliver this code to
>> the plugin writer kind of soon. Thank you again for all the great input
>> here and on the input.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 8:59 AM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think that pulp_deb could maybe create its own association between
>>> publication and artifacts. The problem is that PublishedArtifacts is a
>>> one-size-fits-all solution that probably ought to be instead implemented in
>>> plugins that require some specialized way to join publications and
>>> artifacts.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 4:51 AM Matthias Dellweg <dellweg at atix.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not entierly sure, that this is related, but a while ago, we laid out a
>>>> road map for the pulp3_deb plugin [1]. It includes 8 different
>>>> publishers, that publish different metadata for the same repository
>>>> version. As far as i understand, that is exactly, what
>>>> PublishedArtifacts are for. If it were possible to just use ordinary
>>>> Artifacts and associate them with a Publication instead of a
>>>> RepositoryVersion it might be ok in that context.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, Matthias
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://etherpad.net/p/pulp-deb-pulp3/timeslider#2902
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 12:45:15 -0400
>>>> Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > A plugin writer (@oleksander) pointed out to me that PublishedArtifact
>>>> > seems a bit out of place for his usage. I can see why he thinks that,
>>>> > and after thinking about it, Pulp does seem a bit over-complicated in
>>>> > this area. I've written [0] to describe the problem, promote
>>>> > discussion of this issue, and hopefully decide on a resolution.
>>>> >
>>>> > [0]: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4020
>>>> >
>>>> > Discussion and collaboration is welcome!
>>>> >
>>>> > -Brian
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/20180919/e6dba9eb/attachment.htm>


More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list