[Pulp-dev] Not equal filters

[David Davis]

If we went with django-rest-framework-filters, I'm not sure we could go
with other options later. Our REST API is semantically versioned so we
couldn't switch from name!=value to name__ne=value. Perhaps we could label
not equal filters as a tech preview to get around this?

Also, I'm curious about how we'd upgrade to django 3.0. It looks like they
haven't been merging PRs so I imagine we'd have to fork the project, add
django 3.0 support ourselves, and then vendor it. Is my understanding
correct?

David


On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:13 AM Brian Bouterse <bmbouter at redhat.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:03 AM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> A few weeks ago, Katello opened an issue[0] requesting a set of "not
>> equal" filters (ie filters where a field is not equal to a certain value).
>> I created a pulpcore issue[0] to investigate whether pulpcore could provide
>> this functionality and it seems there are a few different options. I wanted
>> to ask for feedback though as this would affect the user experience and
>> thus whatever option we choose would be permanent.
>>
>> There are three options:
>>
>> 1. First there is a package which adds functionality on top of
>> django-rest-framework-filters[1] which dynamically provides filters for
>> every field using ! (eg name!=value, state!=value). The problem is that the
>> package doesn't look like it's well maintained[2] and we'd quickly run into
>> problems when we try to upgrade to django 3 for example[3]. We'd probably
>> have to fork the project or take over ownership somehow.
>>
> I default to this choice because even though it's not code that is in our
> control and that can feel uncomfortable, they wrote it and it does what we
> need. If it doesn't work out we can go with other options later.
>
>
>> 2. The second solution is that we can try to import the code from
>> django-rest-framework-filters that creates these dynamic filters. This
>> would free us from having to support any other features
>> from django-rest-framework-filters we don't want to support.
>>
>> 3. The third option is to create a django scope (ie "ne") that would
>> allow plugin writers to manually define filters like "name__eq=value". This
>> solution seems the most verbose/explicit/straightforward but also the most
>> work for plugin writers. I have a couple PRs open to demonstrate this
>> solution:
>>
>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/pull/1559
>> https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/452
>>
>> I'll try to move forward with a solution next week. Feedback before then
>> would be much appreciated.
>>
>> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5854
>> [1] https://github.com/philipn/django-rest-framework-filters
>> [2] https://github.com/philipn/django-rest-framework-filters/issues/324
>>  and https://github.com/philipn/django-rest-framework-filters/issues/287
>> [3] https://github.com/philipn/django-rest-framework-filters/issues/326
>>
>> David
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20200129/3e79ffdd/attachment.htm>