[Pulp-dev] renaming user facing fields on content serializers

[David Davis]

Matthias,

I agree. Can you open an issue?

David


On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 4:39 AM Matthias Dellweg <dellweg at atix.de> wrote:

> TL;DR: Should the fields "_relative_path" and "_artifact" on the
> SingleArtifactSerializer be renamed to "relative_path" and "artifact"
> respectively?
>
> While working on the upload create content serializer story [0], i
> noticed, that there are two fields on the
> SingleArtifactContentSerializer with unnecessary complicated names
> ("_artifact" and "_relative_path"). In fact, all descendent
> serializers, i know of take some hurdle [1] to rename "_relative_path"
> back to "relative_path".
> I believe, the leading underscore was added for a convention, that
> pulpcore controlled database fields should not take names (like "href"),
> that may be needed by plugins to represent a domain specific api.
> I think, the naming here is taking this convention one step too far in
> that the serializers themselves are merely a convenience layer for the
> plugin writer, and those serializer fields do not directly correspond
> to database fields on any content model. Moreover the file plugin turns
> "relative_path" (without "_") into a real database field, and given the
> name is seems safe to use a relative_path_validator on a string field
> here.
>
> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5403?pn=1#note-4
> [1]
>
> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_file/blob/b348e970d4ddcd2d7c9dc0b206a3fdd9cfc83cef/pulp_file/app/serializers.py#L36
> [2]
>
> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_file/blob/b348e970d4ddcd2d7c9dc0b206a3fdd9cfc83cef/pulp_file/app/serializers.py#L54
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190910/dcf11f15/attachment.htm>