[Pulp-dev] Renaming Content 'artifact' to '_artifact'

[Daniel Alley]

>
> Given that single-artifact Content is likely to be a very common pattern
> among plugins, maybe it would be best to add this as a mixin for pulpcore.
> If that's the future of this field, we should definitely make it _artifact.


+1 to this, I don't much like having to redefine this in every plugin.  I'm
curious about how to make it work with the serializers though.

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 10:13 AM Austin Macdonald <amacdona at redhat.com>
wrote:

> We have single-artifact Content in Docker as well. I've gone ahead and
> named the field _artifact.
>
> Given that single-artifact Content is likely to be a very common pattern
> among plugins, maybe it would be best to add this as a mixin for pulpcore.
> If that's the future of this field, we should definitely make it _artifact.
>
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 12:24 PM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> In most plugins, Content only has a single artifact so we created a
>> virtual field 'artifact' that we expose to end users. In a recent
>> change[0], we prefixed the Content fields with underscores ('_') so we're
>> considering renaming the field to '_artifact' to be consistent with other
>> plugins that have '_artifacts' on Content. We could use some feedback by
>> sprint planning (Jan 4) either here or on the issue:
>>
>> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4282
>>
>> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4206
>>
>> 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/20190107/52e20a61/attachment.htm>