[Pulp-dev] Unified interface for plugin actions
daviddavis at redhat.com
Fri Mar 1 21:26:41 UTC 2019
I'm curious about how these "actions" are defined. Is the /v3/actions/
namespace limited to plugins? Or, for example, should distribution
create/update/delete be nested under /v3/actions/? What about repository
On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 9:08 PM Justin Sherrill <jsherril at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 3/1/19 2:45 PM, Robin Chan wrote:
> Would such a change make a significant difference in the effort,
> complexity, or time to migrate existing (or support new) plugins in Katello?
> It would be a very small and simple change.
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 2:00 PM Justin Sherrill <jsherril at redhat.com>
>> To me this makes a lot of sense, allows for plugin flexibility, and is
>> more consistent across plugins.
>> I feel like this will make differences between plugins more
>> understandable by reading the api docs, rather than scanning the
>> README's of the respective plugin and trying to work out what is
>> On 2/28/19 1:42 PM, Austin Macdonald wrote:
>> > Now that we have a handful of plugins that have somewhat different
>> > workflows, surprising user-facing differences in the interface for
>> > plugin-related actions are becoming apparent.
>> > Example: Publish
>> > File:
>> > Create a publisher
>> > v3/publishers/file/1/publish/ repository=$REPO
>> > Ansible:
>> > (no publisher)
>> > v3/publications/ repository=$REPO
>> > The difference is not huge, having a different endpoint does defy
>> > expectations of a user who is familiar with one plugin, who then moves
>> > to another plugin.
>> > Plugins can also implement other endpoints, like RPM's one-shot
>> > upload. The problem is that we have mixed idioms. Plugins are
>> > encouraged to create task endpoints for objects (remote's sync,
>> > publisher's publish), but they are also encouraged to create arbitrary
>> > endpoints for any other actions. Users are not able to form reasonable
>> > expectations for this part of the interface from plugin to plugin.
>> > Proposal:
>> > We could move all "actions" into a single area, namespaced by plugin
>> > (by convention). This would allow the plugins the freedom to do
>> > whatever they need to do while keeping the interface consistent and
>> > predictable for users of multiple plugins. These "actions" could be
>> > synchronous or asynchronous. Importantly, this would also create a
>> > logical "group" of endpoints a user could look for in the REST API docs.
>> > Examples:
>> > v3/actions/file/publish/ publisher=$PUB repository=$REPO
>> > v3/actions/ansible/publish/ repository=$REPO
>> > v3/actions/rpm/upload/ file at ./foo-4.1-1.noarch.rpm repository=$REPO
>> > Will this push back the RC?
>> > No. The changes to the plugin API will be small, and the changes to
>> > each plugin would be moving sync and publish endpoints, leaving the
>> > logic almost identical. I anticipate the most time consuming aspect of
>> > this will be adjusting the documentation of each plugin-- but since
>> > they will follow similar patterns, this shouldn't be too much work
>> > To sum up:
>> > We should move sync and publish endpoints to
>> > /actions/<plugin>/<action_name>/ to be consistent with other
>> > plugin-defined actions like one-shot upload. This will look very nice
>> > in swagger docs, and should provide more consistent workflows for
>> > users of multiple plugins.
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pulp-dev