[Pulp-dev] Name uniqueness problem in Pulp 3 REST API

[Grant Gainey]

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 11:38 AM Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 11:22 AM Brian Bouterse <bmbouter at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm concerned if we don't make a change, here's the user experience I'm
>> worried about.
>>
>> 1. User A creates repo 'rhel7'
>> 2. user B can't see repo 'rhel7' because of queryset scoping
>> 3. user B goes to create 'rhel7'
>> 4. user B is told 'rhel7' already exists
>>
>> Users should be able to use simple names. I don't know what the answer is
>> to the import/export implementation conflict, but let's brainstorm some.
>> For the benefit of our users, I don't think that implementation should
>> interfere with this basic use.
>>
>>
> I agree that this is a usability problem for our users.
>
> With regard to import/export, the ideal solution would use the same UUID
> in both the system that's exporting and the system that's importing. Is my
> understanding correct?
>

For PIE to work, it needs to be able to identify whether something needs to
be created otr updated in the 'downstream', and therefore needs to be able
to identify instances as being "the same thing". pulp_id definitely does
that. However, the use-case for PIE can't rely on pulp_id, because it's not
a replica of upstream. Consider the migrated-use-case - starting from
pulp2, I have the exact same content in upstream and downstream, but
completely different pulp_ids.

In any event - PIE isn't really the major issue as far as I am concerned,
it's deciding if a single pulp instance is multi-user or multi-tenant and
following the implications from there.

G


>
>
>
>> Side note: from early on in Pulp3, pk's not names have been the primary
>> identifier. I'm unclear on how we got away from that.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 9:03 AM Matthias Dellweg <mdellweg at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I always understood the "lifting the uniqueness" as allowing to have
>>> the same name used for different resource types. So the new
>>> natrual_key (aka unique_together) would be ["name", "type"].
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 2:55 PM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Agreed.
>>> >
>>> > David
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 8:42 AM Grant Gainey <ggainey at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 8:14 AM Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Does anyone else have an opinion? If not, I am going to start by
>>> writing a task to remove this name uniqueness constraint for repositories.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Import/export relies on non-pulp_id-uniqueness to identify Things. I
>>> was assuming we were talking about adding pulp_type to the Repository
>>> uniqueness-constraint, so that a given name/type would be unique (which
>>> would require a single change to RepositoryResource)
>>> >>
>>> >> If we're talking about just removing the uniqueness-constraint
>>> altogether, then life gets a lot harder.
>>> >>
>>> >> G
>>> >> --
>>> >> Grant Gainey
>>> >> Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat System Management Engineering
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>


-- 
Grant Gainey
Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat System Management Engineering
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20200721/2e2091d7/attachment.htm>