[Pulp-dev] Changes in the Pulp 3 Upload story

[Daniel Alley]

@Matthias why would you prefer to keep the normal create?  As you mention,
the "orphan cleanup" issue applies to both, so there's no advantage given
to the former.

The normal "create" ( POST .../content/plugin/type/ ...) is unidiomatic and
inconsistent, because the fields needed to upload a content are different
from the fields on the actual serializer.  Most content types keep metadata
inside the packages themselves, so you can't let the user specify the
content field values, you have to contort everything so that instead of
hydrating the serializer from user input, it does so by parsing the
content.

There's also the issue that the libraries we're using to parse the (Python
and RPM) packages do some validation on the filename to see that it has the
right extension and so forth, and since artifacts are content-addressed and
don't store that information, with normal create you have to pass the
filename of the original artifact *back in* at the time you create it, and
then copy the file from Pulp content storage into a temp directory under a
filename which will validate properly, which is highly unfortunate.

With one-shot upload, you avoid both of those problems, because there's no
broken expectations as to what fields should be accepted, and because it
should be possible (though I haven't tried it) to parse the original file
*before* saving it as an artifact, thus avoiding a lot of mess. And you
also get the option to add it straight into a repository. In my opinion,
it's a straight upgrade.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 10:57 AM Matthias Dellweg <dellweg at atix.de> wrote:

> I have no objections to having the "one shot upload" or even "one shot
> upload into repositoryversion". I think, i would like to keep the
> 'traditional' create anyway.
> The problem i see with create and one shot upload is, that another
> thing could have triggered 'delete orphans' at the wrong time, and you
> shiny new content unit disappears, before you can add it to a
> repository version.
>
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 14:41:54 -0500
> Austin Macdonald <austin at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > Originally, our upload story was as follows:
> > The user will upload a new file to Pulp via POST to /artifacts/
> > (provided by core)
> > The user will create a new plugin specific Content via POST to
> > /path/to/plugin/content/, referencing whatever artifacts that are
> > contained, and whatever fields are expected for the new content.
> > The user will add the new content to a repository via POST to
> > /repositories/1/versions/
> >
> > However, this is somewhat cumbersome to the user with 3 API calls to
> > accomplish something that only took one call in Pulp 2.
> >
> > There are a couple of different paths plugins have taken to improve
> > the user experience:
> > The Python plugin follows the above workflow, but reads the Artifact
> > file to determine the values for the fields. The RPM plugin has gone
> > even farther and created a new endpoint for "one shot" upload that
> > perform all of this in a single call. I think it is likely that the
> > Python plugin will move more in the "one shot" direction, and other
> > plugins will probably follow.
> >
> > That said, I think we should discuss this as a community to encourage
> > plugins to behave similarly, and because there may also be a
> > possibility for sharing some of code. It is my hope that a "one shot
> > upload" could do 2 things: 1) Upload and create Content. 2)
> > Optionally add that content to repositories.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190219/5c9cf95e/attachment.htm>