[Pulp-dev] Not equal filters

[Daniel Alley]

Going by the comments in this PR [0], if something like this would be used
with the API bindings, wouldn't the name__ne=value scheme be better?  It
also just generally seems a bit more consistent.

[0] https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/316/files

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:51 AM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/b1d9e657/attachment.htm>