[Pulp-dev] RFC: pulp command line interface
bmbouter at redhat.com
Mon May 11 20:14:14 UTC 2020
Thank you for sharing this! Can a basic README be added showing a few
things a user could try after installing it from source? I also put a few
comments inline also.
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 1:53 PM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:
> Adding pulp-list to hopefully get user feedback on this.
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 6:54 AM Matthias Dellweg <mdellweg at redhat.com>
>> A first draft of the architecture that should eventually govern the pulp
>> cli has been completed .
>> The feature set is naturally very limited, since we want to autotemplate
>> most of this after getting good feedback about the architecture.
>> Questions we want to settle at this point are:
>> - Is the command structure comprehensive and useable?
>> 'pulp <plugin_name> <resource_class> [--type resource_type] <action>
>> 'pulp file repository list' === 'pulp file repository --type File
> Does ^ mean the user would run `pulp file repository list`? If so then +1
- Is the implemented plugin autoloading useful?
> It is useful, but why use importlib with naming conventions rather than
each cli package declare a python entrypoint? I think entrypoints are a
more common mechanism of discovery in Python.
- Should we put the cli (plugin-)packages in the corresponding pulp
>> plugin repos as subpackages?
> I'm not entirely sure which is better. I *think* the decision should
mainly come from how we want to test the CLI packages in CI. If we want to
test them with every plugin change then we probably do want them in the
same repo. This is similar reasoning to why we keep the bindings "with the
plugin". What do you think?
>>  https://github.com/mdellweg/pulp-cli
>> 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