[Pulp-dev] pulp 3 bindings change proposal

[Dennis Kliban]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:20 AM Justin Sherrill <jsherril at redhat.com>
wrote:

> If a plugin provided multiple remotes, for example, what would that look
> like?
>
> in your example:
>
> -file_remote = fileremotes.remotes_file_file_create(remote_data)+file_remote = fileremotes.create(remote_data)
>
> Lets say the file plugin provided some other remote that still synced file content?
>
>
The goal is to provide separate API objects for each remote or content type
that a plugin provides. So the code would look like this:

file_remote = fileremote.create(remote_data)
file_fancy_remote = filefancyremote.create(fancy_remote_data)

My current implementation does not support this, but I am working toward
the above solution.


>
> Justin
>
> On 6/19/19 9:45 AM, Dennis Kliban wrote:
>
> I didn't get a note in my email, but I did see one on in the list
> archive[0]. So here is my response to it:
>
> I agree that we could use modified templates to achieve the same results.
> However, that means that we will need to modify templates for every
> language we want to generate bindings in. In both cases the generated
> client code will be exactly the same. From a maintenance perspective, it is
> easier to add a feature to Pulp's REST API that produces a modified version
> of the OpenAPI schema. It also means that we can always use the latest
> versions of the templates shipped with openapi-generator.
>
> The documentation site would continue to distribute an OpenAPI schema
> where each Operation Id is unique.
>
> Pulp's OpenAPI schema does not currently pass validation because the paths
> are not unique. In order to use the 'href' of each resource as the primary
> identifier, it was necessary to template paths as {artifact_href},
> {repository_href}, {file_content_href}, etc. This schema cannot be used to
> generate server code. However, it works well when generating client code.
> The non-unique operation ids would be a problem for generating a server
> also. However, they don't produce problems when generating client code.
>
> Does this address your concerns?
>
> [0] https://www.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/2019-June/msg00061.html
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:54 AM Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> As pointed out in a recent issue[0], the method names in the bindings
>> generated from Pulp's OpenAPI schema are unnecessarily verbose. Each method
>> name corresponds to an Operation Id in the OpenAPI schema. The Operation Id
>> is also used as an HTML anchor in the REST API docs[1].
>>
>> It is possible to generate a schema where each Operation Id is shorter,
>> but then the Operation Ids are not unique and all the linking in the REST
>> API documentation breaks. We can avoid this problem by keeping the long
>> Operation Id for the schema generated for the docs and only using short
>> Operation Ids when generating the schema for the bindings.
>>
>> The difference in usage of the bindings can be seen here[2].
>>
>> Is there any objection to including such a change in time for RC 3?
>>
>> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4989
>> [1] https://docs.pulpproject.org/en/3.0/nightly/restapi.html
>> [2] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4989#note-1
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing listPulp-dev at redhat.comhttps://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20190619/e7f5787d/attachment.htm>