A few of us[0] met earlier today to discuss further steps with the CLI. We agreed on the following next steps:
1) Over the next week @bizhang is going to explore how we can add value to coreapi-cli[1] - in particular see about adding polling for operations that return tasks 2) We want to send a note out to pulp-list to ask users the following questions: - What commands or functionality in the CLI do you rely on the most? - Are there things you wish the CLI had or did? - Why do you use the CLI over using the REST API directly? - Do you strictly use the CLI or do you use other things like Katello or the REST API? - Would you prefer a CLI or a basic web UI (that leverages something like Django admin)? [0] dawalker, daviddavis, bizhang, asmacdo, dkliban [1] http://www.coreapi.org/ On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Bihan Zhang <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm +1 to shipping a CLI out with our GA. According to our last community > survey ~47% of users used a CLI, vs ~33% using a REST API (the last ~20% > uses Katello/Sat UI/Foreman) [0]. > > I think there should be some single call operations that the CLI does > support- for example creating a pulp_python remote from a requirements.txt. > The pulp_python REST API remote endpoint expects a dictionary of projects, > and specifiers; the same information present in a requirements.txt, but it > would be inappropriate for the endpoint to only support remote creation > from a requirements.txt, since there's many other formats this information > might be present in (Pipfile, Pipfile.lock, pyproject.toml, etc) > So the REST API should be left generic, but the CLI should support parsing > these files and sending a formatted request to the endpoint. > > The role of CLI should be to make workflows easier but I think for the GA > we should have minimal workflows. We should start with a 1-1 mapping for > core endpoints, with perhaps one additional 'pulp-cli quickstart' command > that will create a repository, a remote, a publisher, and a distribution > with a single command. Any additional workflow features can be added by > user request. > > And plugins can ship out their own CLI features (or not) separately. > > [0] https://pulpproject.org/2017/08/08/community-survey-results/ > > > > On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 10:24 AM, Bryan Kearney <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On 05/21/2018 09:56 AM, David Davis wrote: >> >> that the CLI does no "single call" operations. Those are already >> > handled veyr well by httpie. >> > >> > If a user wants for example to update an object >> > (repo/remote/distribution/etc), then they have to switch from the CLI >> to >> > httpie? >> >> >> I assume pulp is focused on sysadmins, yes? If so, are there other tools >> targeted at this audience that does not have a cli? >> >> -- bk >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
