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

[Austin Macdonald]

Gotcha. /me shrugs

However we decide to implement this, its pretty evident that this field
will eventually be a core field, or at the very least treated like a core
field. So I can confidently say that yes, it should be renamed.

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 11:06 AM Daniel Alley <dalley at redhat.com> wrote:

> The serializer just needs to remove the _artifacts field and add an
>> _artifact field. Here's how I did it in docker, which is a total ripoff of
>> the file plugin.
>>
>
> I know it's fairly simple to do manually, I just meant to do so
> automatically (unless we also need a serializer mixin like you said).
>
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 10:41 AM Austin Macdonald <amacdona at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The serializer just needs to remove the _artifacts field and add an
>> _artifact field. Here's how I did it in docker, which is a total ripoff of
>> the file plugin.
>>
>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_docker/pull/291/
>>
>> It might be worth making a serializer mixin also? (I can almost hear
>> jortel cringing about all these mixins)
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 10:32 AM Daniel Alley <dalley at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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/20190107/2630f7bf/attachment.htm>