On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 to updating #3033 to have a created_resources attribute which would be > a list of GenericForeignKeys. It also needs docs, but I'm not entirely sure > where. > > If we're going to introduce the above attribute, I think having the > controller endpoint as-is would be the most usable. @dkliban do you see > value in changing the URL structure if the created_resources attribute is > introduced? > > This API call creates a publication resource. A POST to publishers/<id>/publications/ seems most appropriate for creating new publication resources. I can help review/groom these if that is helpful. > > -Brian > > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 1:39 PM, David Davis <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Personally I am not opposed to the url endpoint you suggest. >> >> It also seems like there is some consensus around adding a ‘created >> resources’ relationship to Task or at least prototyping that out to see >> what it would look like. >> >> If no one disagrees, should I update issue #3033 with those two items? >> >> >> David >> >> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Dennis Kliban <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 11:24 AM, David Davis <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I don’t know that the ambiguity around whether a task has a publication >>>> or not is a big deal. If I call the publication endpoint, I’d expect a >>>> publication task which either has 1 publication or 0 (if the publication >>>> failed) attached to it. >>>> >>>> In terms of ambiguity, I see a worse problem around adding a task_id >>>> field to publications. As a user, I don’t know if a publication failed or >>>> not when I get back a publication object. Instead, I have to look up the >>>> task to see if it is a real (or successful) publication. Moreover, since we >>>> allow users to remove/clean up tasks, that task may not even exist anymore. >>>> >>>> >>> I agree that the ephemeral nature of tasks makes the originally proposed >>> solution non-deterministic. I am open to associating 'resources created' >>> with a task instead. >>> >>> However, I still think there is value in changing the rest API endpoint >>> for starting a publish task to POST /api/v3/repositories/<repo-id> >>> /publishers/<type>/<name>/publications/. However, I will start a >>> separate thread for that discussion. >>> >>> - Dennis >>> >>> >>>> >>>> David >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:00 PM, Michael Hrivnak <[email protected] >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks everyone for all the discussion! I'll try to recap the >>>>>>> problem and some of the solutions I've heard. I'll also share some of my >>>>>>> perspective on them too. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What problem are we solving? >>>>>>> When a user calls "publish" (the action API endpoint) they get a 202 >>>>>>> w/ a link to the task. That task will produce a publication. How can the >>>>>>> user find the publication that was produced by the task? How can the >>>>>>> user >>>>>>> be sure the publication is fully complete? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What are our options? >>>>>>> 1) Start linking to created objects from task status. I believe its >>>>>>> been clearly stated about why we can't do this. If it's not clear, or if >>>>>>> there are other things we should consider, let's talk about it. >>>>>>> Acknowledging or establishing agreement on this is crucial because a >>>>>>> change >>>>>>> like this would bring back a lot of the user pain from pulp2. I believe >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> HAL suggestion falls into this area. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I may have missed something, but I do not think this is clear. I know >>>>>> that Pulp 2's API included a lot of unstructured data, but that is not at >>>>>> all what I'm suggesting here. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is standard and recommended practice for REST API responses to >>>>>> include links to resources along with information about what type of >>>>>> resource each link references. We could include a reference to the >>>>>> created >>>>>> resource and an identifier for what type of resource it is, and that >>>>>> would >>>>>> be well within the bounds of good REST API design. HAL is just one of >>>>>> several ways to accomplish that, and I'm not pitching any particular >>>>>> solution there. In any case, I'm not sure what the problem would be with >>>>>> this approach. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I agree it is a standard practice for a resource to include links to >>>>> other resources, but the proposal is to include "generic" links is >>>>> different and creates a different user experience. I believe referencing >>>>> the task from the publication will be easier for users and clients. When a >>>>> user looks up a publication, they will always know they'll get between 0 >>>>> and 1 links to a task. You can use that to check the state of the >>>>> publication. If we link to "generic" resources (like a publication) from a >>>>> task, then if I ask a user "do you expect task >>>>> ede3af3e-d5cf-4e18-8c57-69ac4d4e4de6 to contain a link to a >>>>> publication or not?" you can't know until you query it. I think that >>>>> ambiguity was a pain point in Pulp2. I don't totally reject this solution, >>>>> but this is an undesirable property (I think). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2) Have the user find the publication via query that sorts on time >>>>>>> and filters only for a specific publisher. This could be fragile because >>>>>>> with a multi-user system and no hard references between publications and >>>>>>> tasks, answering the question "which is the publication for me" is hard >>>>>>> because another user could have submitted a publish too. While not >>>>>>> totally >>>>>>> perfect, this could work. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In theory if a user queried for a publication from a specific >>>>>> publisher that was created between the start and end times of the task, >>>>>> that should unambiguously identify the correct publication. But depending >>>>>> on timestamps is not a particularly robust nor confidence-inspiring way >>>>>> to >>>>>> reference a resource. >>>>>> >>>>> Agreed and Agreed >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3) Have the user create a publication directly like any other REST >>>>>>> resource, and help the user understand the state of that resource over >>>>>>> time. I believe the proposal at the start of this thread is recommending >>>>>>> this solution. I'm also +1 on this solution. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I think the problem with this is that a user cannot create a >>>>>> publication. A user can only ask a plugin to create a publication. Until >>>>>> the plugin creates the publication, there is no publication. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Note a publication is an object, but really we mean a publication and >>>>> it's related PublishedArtifact, PublishedMetadat, etc objects. It would be >>>>> straightforward for a user to create a publication using the viewset and >>>>> have the task associated with it call the publisher to build out the >>>>> associated PublishedArtifact, PublishedContent, PublishedMetadata, etc. We >>>>> should explore if this is good or not, but it is possible. >>>>> >>>>> As an aside, this is related to a problem everyone should be aware of: >>>>> the existence of a publication does not guarantee that publication is >>>>> finished publishing. Even with option 1, where the task creates the >>>>> publisher and links to it in the task status, while the publisher is >>>>> running it must save the Publication so that the PublishedArtifact, etc >>>>> can >>>>> link to it. So for any given publication, in order to know if it's "fully >>>>> finished and consistent" you must be able to check the status of the >>>>> associated task that produced it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> As an aside, I don't think considering versioned repos as a possible >>>>>>> solution is helping us with this problem. The scope of the current >>>>>>> problem >>>>>>> is relatively small and the scope of planning for versioned repos is >>>>>>> large. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Versioned repos is a potential solution. In that scenario, a user >>>>>> would request publication of a specific repo version (perhaps defaulting >>>>>> to >>>>>> the latest), the publication would be linked to that version, and that is >>>>>> an easy mechanism for the user to find the publication they want. >>>>>> Ultimately the user is interested in working with a specific content set >>>>>> anyway. They get a repo to a state where it has the content they want, >>>>>> and >>>>>> then they publish that content set. No matter what we do with >>>>>> publications, >>>>>> users will think of them in terms of related content sets. A repo version >>>>>> is that immutable content set they can work with confidently. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It's neat to me that that versions are snapshots of content and >>>>> publications are snapshots of content. Publications already create much of >>>>> the value propostion of versioned repos with publications. They allow you >>>>> to work with specific content sets like you describe. Also they allow for >>>>> rollback. So that is all great for our users. For this thread, I want to >>>>> bring the conversation back to where it started, solving a small problem >>>>> about linking two resources that already exist. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> It helps the rollback scenario a lot as well. Versioning repos allows >>>>>> a user to see what the differences are between two content sets, and thus >>>>>> two different publications, which informs them about when and how far >>>>>> back >>>>>> they should roll back a distribution. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> - user discovers a horrible flaw in a piece of content >>>>>> - user queries for which version of the repo introduced that piece of >>>>>> content >>>>>> - user updates the distribution to serve the publication that came >>>>>> before the one which introduced the piece of content, optionally >>>>>> re-publishing that version in case its publication was deleted or had >>>>>> never >>>>>> been made in the first place. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
