[Pulp-dev] Namespacing plugins, looking for feedback

Fri Jan 4 19:17:18 UTC 2019

While I am not opposed to dropping the "pulp_" prefix in URLs, I don't like
the idea of adding another attribute to the plugin configuration.

I am +1 to automatic namespacing and using the django app label.

David

On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 1:50 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko <ttereshc at redhat.com>
wrote:

> It's seems that there is a consensus that all master/detail related
> endpoints should be prepended.
> There is no consensus if the current Django app label is good enough to
> use in the construction of the endpoints.
>
> My personal opinion:
> It's probably better if "pulp_" part goes away, at the same time I'm
> hesitant to add new attributes to configuration, since Django provides
> enough of them and gives us uniqueness check for free.
> See Django docs
> https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/2.1/ref/applications/#configurable-attributes
> Label is supposed to be a short name for the app.
>
> Please vote and/or raise your concerns if you have any by next Friday,
> voting will be closed on Jan 11, 2019 at 8:00PM EST.
> The proposal is described in https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4279
>
> My vote:
> +1 for automatic namespacing for all master/detail endpoints
> +1 to use existing Django app label
>
> Thank you,
> Tanya
>
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 1:15 PM Ina Panova <ipanova at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 namespacing all master/detail
>>
>> For consistency, i would prefer to see same format i see in
>> `content_summary` as in content endpoints, even if it does not make sense
>> from user's perspective, because what we now have in content_summary, i
>> would not say that it makes much sense from user's perspective ;)
>>
>> --------
>> 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 Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 8:55 PM Austin Macdonald <amacdona at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +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
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20190104/8b94a14d/attachment.htm>