Thanks for the classifications. On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 2:37 PM, Dennis Kliban <dkli...@redhat.com> wrote:
I think of these actions as 2 new types of resource in Pulp. Unlike > Remotes(Importers currently) and Content, these resources are singletons > that each plugin provides. Since users don't need to create new instances > of these resources it makes sense that they are represented by a View > instead of a ViewSet. Though we don't even need to explain that to plugin > writers. We just need to tell them that all operations that their plugin > provides for users need to be sublassed from ActionView. > > From the users point of view a GET on /api/v3/versionsactions/ to find a > versionaction href is the same as performing a GET on /api/v3/remotes/ to > find the href for a specific remote to sync from. > > Auto documentation would work perfectly. > > Its not that it would be "broken" or "wrong". I just think that users expect the documentation to include behavior and parameters-- ideally, there should be enough information to create a request. In this case however, the documentation just explains how to retrieve the necessary information. It works, but I don't think it is ideal that the user needs to make other GET requests to learn how to use an API endpoint.
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
