On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Austin Macdonald <amacd...@redhat.com> wrote:
> After some reflection, I think we have been too focused on the small > points (plugin complexity, URL organization, actions vs nouns). They should > be discussed, but we don't have consensus around the primary concern. > > Correctness is what motivated this proposal, so I'd like to take a step > back and discuss only correctness. > > My assertion: > > Plugins should be able to define and enforce constraints on the content > membership of a repository. > > My reasoning: > > Some plugins have natural constraints on the membership of a repository. > Two Docker Tags of the same name cannot be in a the same Repository. > Manifest Lists cannot be in a repository without the Manifests that are > listed. It would be fundamentally incorrect to prevent the plugins from > enforcing these kinds of constraints. I think there are similar problems > with errata package lists. > > The current plugin API allows plugin authors to define custom REST API endpoints that can perform any custom validation needed for the plugin. The repository version creation REST API provided by pulpcore only validates that the content exists. We should document this limitation and recommend that users use Repository Version creation APIs provided by specific plugins. > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > Pulp-dev@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
