Your plan sounds good to me. Especially since as @mhrivnak highlighted that this area would be changing with repo versions.
Unless anyone disagrees, I think we should merge https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3195. David On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> wrote: > From the discussion on #2873 I remember, we discussed a lot of options. We > should continue exploring those options because we haven't decided on the > long term usage. My hope is that improvements in this area will be driven > by users who can tell us more clearly about how they want to use Pulp. > > We already exposed these join model models because we had to do something > for the MVP. With so many options and ways to position this usage, the > exposing of the models was the simplest option for us to create. It meets > the use cases as we've written them in the MVP (I think) and it took us > almost 0 code to do it. I think to move forward right now, we should fixup > the DELETE call and move on for now. > > The ideal situation (I think) would be: > > 1. fixup the DELETE call and continue to expose the join model > 2. release pulp3 and get users > 3. have them drive improvements in this area so we can design with our > users to get this right > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 8:20 AM, David Davis <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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 >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
