[Pulp-dev] Namespacing plugins, looking for feedback

Wed Jan 2 19:54:11 UTC 2019

+1 automatic namespacing for master/detail. I realize the easiest way to do
this would be to use the app_label, giving us:

/api/v3/content/pulp_rpm/packages/

However, I feel like this url is pretty clunky. The "pulp_" is totally
unnecessary, from the user's perspective. Instead, I think I'd prefer to
add an attribute to the App config.
https://github.com/pulp/plugin_template/blob/master/pulp_plugin_template/app/__init__.py#L8

`endpoint_namespace = rpm` or `short_label = rpm`

Result: /api/v3/content/rpm/packages/

The downside is that every plugin would need 1 more line of code. The
upside is that we could implement it exactly same way as app_label but
without url redundancy.

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 2:39 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko <ttereshc at redhat.com>
wrote:

> It would be automatic, and plugins need a change only to avoid redundant
> prepending.
> E.g. If RPM plugin makes no changes, the endpoint for RPM content will be:
>
> /api/v3/content/pulp_rpm/rpm/packages/
>
> because endpoint_name = 'rpm/packages'.
>
> So plugin should leave only endpoint_name = 'packages'.
>
> The endpoint with redundant plugin name will work fine, just doesn't look good :)
>
> Tanya
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 7:20 PM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> I am +1 to namespacing all master detail models with the plugin name.
>> Would this be automatic or something that the plugin writers would be
>> encouraged to do?
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 12:58 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko <ttereshc at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you all for the discussion so far.
>>> The question - the type field and namespacing in content summary - is
>>> solved with https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4185.
>>>
>>> The last remaining question is whether we want to prepend endpoints for
>>> master/detail models with plugin label. If yes, then everything or for
>>> Content only.
>>> See details on the issue https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4279.
>>>
>>> Examples of the suggested change:
>>>
>>> /api/v3/content/rpm/packages/ --> /api/v3/content/pulp_rpm/packages/
>>> /api/v3/remotes/rpm/ --> /api/v3/content/remotes/pulp_rpm/rpm/
>>> /api/v3/publishers/rpm/ --> /api/v3/content/publishers/pulp_rpm/rpm/
>>>
>>> Changes which will be needed in plugins:
>>>   - adjust the value of the `endpoint_name` attribute in the viewsets we introduce changes to
>>>
>>> Please provide feedback, here or on the issue
>>> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4279.
>>> This is an RC blocker, so it would be great to groom it over the next
>>> couple of days.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Tanya
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 9:41 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko <
>>> ttereshc at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since we are leaning towards prepending types for _all_ master/detail
>>>> models and not only for the content model, that Django fix is no longer
>>>> important for us.
>>>>
>>>> Tanya
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 6:18 PM Daniel Alley <dalley at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> David, was that a vote to make it explicit?
>>>>>
>>>>> I would regard this as fairly intuitive as far as "magic-ness" goes,
>>>>> acceptable from the user POV in my opinion.  And if Django is explicitly
>>>>> trying to support this functionality and relies on it working properly, and
>>>>> has a unittest for it going forwards, then I'm fairly confident it won't be
>>>>> too fragile.  My vote is +1.
>>>>>
>>>>> My only concern (and it's not a major one) is that a plugin that
>>>>> needed to be renamed might have problems with this.  But I think that would
>>>>> be resolvable with a migration.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tanya, will we need to remove the workaround once Django 2.2 comes
>>>>> out?  If so, we should file a Refactor task for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:39 AM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:31 AM Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is also an issue w/ my suggestion in that it's highly magical.
>>>>>>> The class name is likely going to go through a case mutation and if not
>>>>>>> it's going to be finicky in terms of its case. So now I'm thinking the
>>>>>>> plugin writer should have to define it to keep it simple and explicit (not
>>>>>>> implicit and magical).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:27 AM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Would it be possible to default to class name but let plugin
>>>>>>>> writers override this? I would imagine in some cases plugin writers might
>>>>>>>> want to change the name (eg cases where you can't use type as the class
>>>>>>>> name like File).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:23 AM Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:07 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko <
>>>>>>>>> ttereshc at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Brian,
>>>>>>>>>> the current PR [0] does exactly what you describe, it uses label
>>>>>>>>>> which is taken from the plugin subclass of PulpPluginAppconfig + TYPE
>>>>>>>>>> defined on the detail model.
>>>>>>>>>> FWIW, there is an option to use plugin class name and not a
>>>>>>>>>> plugin writer defined TYPE, e.g. pulp_file.filecontent, pulp_rpm.package,
>>>>>>>>>> pulp_rpm.updaterecord, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1 to using the classname. Having the plugin class name used would
>>>>>>>>> allow the user to not repeat themselves as much. I think it's likely the
>>>>>>>>> class name == TYPE in almost all cases. The plugin writer would have 1 less
>>>>>>>>> requirement on them at Content model definition time and that helps achieve
>>>>>>>>> the "less burden on plugin writers" goal for pulp.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jeff, to answer your questions:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. why do all the plugins begin with "pulp_"?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is how django app label is defined in every plugin so far,
>>>>>>>>>> see pulp_file case [1].
>>>>>>>>>> Whatever is defined there is used as a plugin name.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2. can the plugin name get pre-pended when it's loaded by core?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I lean toward TYPE=<plugin>.<type>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just to clarify, there is a class arttriburte `TYPE` and there is
>>>>>>>>>> a `type` field on a model. I guess you suggest type = <plugin>.<TYPE>.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We can probably do it on a master model in the save method [2],
>>>>>>>>>> just initially the change was proposed for Content models only.
>>>>>>>>>> If we decide to namespace all master/detail objects, I agree we
>>>>>>>>>> can do it n a more generic way, than just redefine __init__ on a specific
>>>>>>>>>> class.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tanya
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [0]  https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3801
>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_file/blob/24881314372b9c1c505ff687c15238126b261afa/pulp_file/app/__init__.py#L10
>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp/blob/master/pulpcore/app/models/base.py#L76-L83
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 12:58 PM Ina Panova <ipanova at redhat.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to namespace master/detail as well.
>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to Brian's suggestion to try.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --------
>>>>>>>>>>> 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, Dec 18, 2018 at 12:15 AM Brian Bouterse <
>>>>>>>>>>> bbouters at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to namespacing all Master/Detail objects (Remotes,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Publishers, etc). Namespacing will increase consistency w/ the user
>>>>>>>>>>>> experience and will avoid plugin-to-plugin naming collisions. @ttereshc +1
>>>>>>>>>>>> to the url changes and content summary changes you've described.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it would be ideal if the app specified its 'label'
>>>>>>>>>>>> attribute on the PulpPluginAppconfig subclass, e.g here in pulp_file
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_file/blob/24881314372b9c1c505ff687c15238126b261afa/pulp_file/app/__init__.py#L10
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then the Model for, e.g. the FileContent would have the second portion of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the string 'file' as an example and Master/Detail would assemble them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this implementation how you imagined it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:29 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>> ttereshc at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just to clarify, the type field is not used in the endpoint
>>>>>>>>>>>>> construction, so two changes described in the original e-mail are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> independent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In my opinion:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  - it is possible to have type collisions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  - it is possible to have the same endpoints (endpoint_name in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a viewset).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> FWIW, the endpoint collision is not unique to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> master/detail models' endpoints. A plugin, in theory, can define any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> endpoint they want.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Though not preventing collisions it for endpoints related to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> master/detail models makes it easier to create such collision accidentally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tanya
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 2:27 PM David Davis <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it possible (under the current model, without namespacing)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to have type collisions in the database for master/detail models? Like what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if two plugins define two Contents with the same type or two Remotes with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same type? This kind of leads me to believe we should namespace
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything. On the Ansible plugin for example, I started working on a git
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remote[0]. Luckily I chose "ansible_git" as the type but I could see plugin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> writers running into problems if they are not so careful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_ansible/pull/38/files#diff-debb42c875c19140793de39be3696ee3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 4:41 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ttereshc at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is an issue [0] of colliding type names in the content
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> summary which evolved into more general namespacing problem for plugins.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The suggested changes [1] are:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  1. include plugin name into the content summary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "content_summary": {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     "pulp_rpm.package": 50,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     "pulp_rpm.errata": 2,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     "pulp_file.file": 5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. include plugin name into content endpoints
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /api/v3/content/file/files/ -->
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /api/v3/content/pulp_file/files/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /api/v3/content/rpm/packages/ -->
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /api/v3/content/pulp_rpm/packages/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /api/v3/content/rpm/errata/ -->
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /api/v3/content/pulp_rpm/errata/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the change #1, not only content summary output is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed but the type itself in the database. If the content type is used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> somewhere in the filters, it should be specified in that format:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "plugin_name.plugin_type". Does it makes sense to extend the master model
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and have a plugin name field and a type field, instead of putting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preformatted string into the type field?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the change #2, endpoints are namespaced only for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content endpoint and not for other endpoints related to master/detail
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> models, like remotes, publishers, etc. It's inconsistent, however it makes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the most sense to have it for content endpoints.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any concerns or thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tanya
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4185#note-8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3801
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190102/11fc629e/attachment.htm>