[Pulp-dev] Master-detail inheritance in Pulp 3

[Ina Panova]

I would avoid making changes in class naming. So +1 for the OneToOneField
definition.


--------
Regards,

Ina Panova
Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc.

"Do not go where the path may lead,
 go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."


On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 6:45 PM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:

> The default_related_name setting is something that django provides.
> Subclasses can also explicitly define their OneToOneField parent link as
> well:
>
> content_ptr = models.OneToOneField(Content, on_delete=models.CASCADE,
> parent_link=True, related_name='rpm_package')
>
> I am not sure what you mean by 'robust' but if a plugin subclass doesn't
> do either of these, it may not work with other plugins.
>
> I think the question now would be whether we should just document this or
> try to do it automagically for plugins?
>
> David
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 12:31 PM Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 11:02 AM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think I found another solution that might work best: defining
>>> 'default_related_name' on subclassed master-detail models. So Package in
>>> pulp_rpm would define its default_related_name as "rpm_package".
>>>
>> Would we be making 'default_related_name' or is that something Django is
>> providing? If it's something Pulp would be providing perhaps defining the
>> explicit one-to-one field is better. Any plugin that takes the step of
>> defining the one-to-one field will insulate themselves from other plugins.
>> If plugins don't take that step they will still work, just not as robustly.
>> Am I thinking about this correctly?
>>
>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 10:29 AM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wanted to email the pulp-dev list about a major problem[0] that was
>>>> recently encountered in Pulp 3 that affects how the Pulp 3 plugin API
>>>> functions.
>>>>
>>>> # Problem
>>>>
>>>> In the plugin API we rely on inheritance to allow plugin writers to
>>>> import functionality into their plugin. This includes models such as Remote
>>>> and Content that are inherited by plugins. We rely on django's multi-table
>>>> inheritance[1] for these models.
>>>>
>>>> Behind the scenes, django defines a OneToOneField and a reverse
>>>> accessor. This field is not namespace so if two subclasses have the same
>>>> name, you get an error ("Reverse accessor for 'Package.content_ptr' clashes
>>>> with reverse accessor for 'Package.content_ptr'.")
>>>>
>>>> To give an actual example, both the Debian and RPM plugins implement a
>>>> Package class. This causes an error to be raised when a user installs both
>>>> plugins. Django tries to define a 'package' reverse accessor for both
>>>> subclasses and blows up.
>>>>
>>>> # Potential Solutions
>>>>
>>>> ## Class Naming
>>>>
>>>> The first solution I can think of which is probably also the simplest
>>>> and most straightforward would be to require plugin writers to namespace
>>>> their master/detail subclass names. So Package would be RpmPackage. This
>>>> places the onus on plugin writers to name their master/detail classes
>>>> correctly.
>>>>
>>>> ## Defining OneToOneField
>>>>
>>>> The other solution would be to either manually define the OneToOneField
>>>> on the subclasses[2] and specify a namespaced field name. There may be a
>>>> way to do this dynamically (ie magically) in the parent somehow as well.
>>>>
>>>> ## Abstract Class
>>>>
>>>> Lastly, we could redefine master models as abstract classes[3]. I can
>>>> think of at least one or two places (e.g. content field on
>>>> RepositoryVersionContent, publisher field on Publication) that would have
>>>> to switch their relationships to generic relationships in order to
>>>> accommodate this change.
>>>>
>>>> There might be other solutions I am not thinking of so feel free to
>>>> propose something. Also, quick feedback would be greatly appreciated as
>>>> this is going to be a major change in our plugin API.
>>>>
>>>> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4681
>>>> [1]
>>>> https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/2.2/topics/db/models/#multi-table-inheritance
>>>> [2]
>>>> https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/2.2/topics/db/models/#specifying-the-parent-link-field
>>>> [3]
>>>> https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/2.2/topics/db/models/#abstract-base-classes
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20190424/20872fb2/attachment.htm>