Here is where I stand: -1 on converting the task status API to task creation API (the original proposal) +1 on adding a hook for plugins to provide repository version validation of content +1 on exploring other ideas to make the v3 API more RESTful (removing the action end points such as 'sync' and 'publish')
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 12:01 PM, David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> wrote: > I’ve had a chance to think about this some more this week and reread all > the emails. I think that the solution of just adding a hook is best. Each > solution seems to be imperfect and I think we still want users to interact > with objects (remotes, repositories, etc). I’d say I’m +1 on adding a hook > and -0 on the other proposals. > > > David > > On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 5:02 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> @asmacdo and I talked some and I wanted to share a few of my thoughts on >> the plugin tasks problem statements. >> >> I agree with a problem statement for pulp_docker for example that it >> would be good for a plugin writer to add custom validation when creating a >> new repo/version. I thought this idea was stated already, but I'll retell >> what I had thought we would do to add plugin writer validation. We would >> make an optional plugin writer hook that validates the entire repository >> when the RepositoryVersion is being made complete. Also this would also >> allow a plugin to "disable" the repoversion endpoint by always raising an >> exception here. >> >> The documentation convention is also a good outcome. It would recommend >> that plugin writers put their views in a url namespaced by their plugin >> name. I think we should do that. >> >> The other main problem I've read about with what we currently have is >> that the actions urls (sync, publish, export, custom views) would be all in >> different areas of the API urls. This is identified as a problem, but I >> think this is ok. It allows us to explain each of those parts of pulp >> separately, which makes the understanding of the API still pretty easy. >> >> I also believe another tertiary problem identified is that the 'sync', >> 'publish', and 'export' words are not restful and it would be good to >> resolve that somehow. A restful API would be an easier API to use because >> REST clients already know how to interact with a resource. Action endpoints >> kind of break this. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 2:54 PM, Austin Macdonald <amacd...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
