After reading through the updating relationships section of the JSON API spec [1], I kind of agree with @jortel that we shouldn’t expose the join model unless it provides extra fields besides simply joining two models. Also, it might be worth adding a “content_ids” field that can be used when updating repositories (see [2]).
By the way, I also saw there was a django-rest-framework-json-api package [3]. Might be worth considering. [1] http://jsonapi.org/format/#crud-updating-relationships [2] http://jsonapi.org/format/#crud-updating-resource-relationships [3] https://github.com/django-json-api/django-rest-framework-json-api David On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 12:22 AM, Michael Hrivnak <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Dennis Kliban <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Exposing the RepoContent model via REST API leaves us with the most >> flexibility in the future. We decided on this design in issue 2873[0]. >> >> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2873 >> > > FWIW my read of #2873 is that we discussed a lot of different design ideas > and eventually agreed that one of them had previously been implemented. I > don't think we found agreement on what the design should be long-term. > > -- > > Michael Hrivnak > > Principal Software Engineer, RHCE > > Red Hat >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
