[Pulp-dev] pulp 3 bindings change proposal

[Dennis Kliban]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:34 AM Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

I was able to achieve this. I posted some screen shots of what the docs
look like here[0].

Docker has multiple content types. So docker bindings would provide the
following objects: ContentDockerBlobsApi, ContentDockerManifestListTagsApi,
ContentDockerManifestListsApi, ContentDockerManifestTagsApi, and
ContentDockerManifestsApi.

Each of those objects would have a create(), read(), delete(), list()
methods.

Do others agree that this improves the usability of the bindings?


[0] https://imgur.com/a/Ag7gqmj


>
>
>>
>> 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/20190619/79d10de9/attachment.htm>