For everyone following along, the conversation has moved to Github - on the PR[0] with the proposed changes.
[0] https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3561 On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:15 AM, Bihan Zhang <bizh...@redhat.com> wrote: > @dkliban I've tried out your PR and left a question: https://github.com/ > pulp/pulp/pull/3561#issuecomment-407425172 > > Won't it be problematic with the openapi definitions causing us to have >> two schemas? Accepting the data in two forms is one thing, but using >> openapi to describe it both ways is something I don't understand well. Are >> we going to ship and test two? >> > > I don't think we'll be defining the data in two different ways in > openapi. We need to pass a {repository identifier} to /sync/, openapi > expects a string, what we do with that string is up to us. (In the > following example the format is "uri" but this isn't actually used for > validation at all, since it's not defined by the swagger specification [0], > we can also clear out the format field, since format is only there to > support documentation needs) > > - RepositorySyncURL: > { > - required: > [ > - "repository" > ], > - type: "object", > - properties: > { > - repository: > { > - title: "Repository", > - description: "A URI of the repository to be synchronized.", > - type: "string", > - format: "uri" > } > } > }, > > > I can see why some users would want to refer to things in the api using ID >> not an href. I think about the case that when calling publish and referring >> to a RepositoryVersion with id=827561, num=3, and for repository=1234. With >> an ID alternately accepted, you could call publish and submit >> repo_version=827561 instead of repo_version='repositories/1234/version/3/'. >> I can see that benefit, but it comes with downsides. Saving/storing a url I >> know feels a little strange, but I do see several upsides... >> > >> Doing it only with hrefs, ensures those benefits (nice recap btw) will >> always be true. Having to submit the references using something like >> 'repositories/1234/version/3/' will cause any client to store them that >> way. I think that's a good thing because someone troubleshooting their >> scripts or in katello's db will instead have 'repositories/1234/version/3/', >> which they can directly use with HTTP. I think this is valuable. Otherwise >> they would have repo version 827561, which now they have to do extra work >> to start interacting with that object via HTTP. Storing urls removes the >> "templating" step from the troubleshooter's responsibilities so we're >> making their job easier. Spacewise, I don't think the clients benefit >> hugely from storing 827561 instead of 'repositories/1234/version/3/', >> but humans do. >> > Why don't we provide the ability to use both href and id as identifiers, > and katello can choose the route that is right for them based on the points > you bring up? > >> >> I don't know much about the CLI, but if we want to enable a specific user >> experience, I think we can find a way to make that work. Overall I think >> users should be able to specify things in the most intuitive way possible, >> and I don't see how API data formats directly influence that. For example I >> think referring to a repository by it's name is the most natural; it's more >> natural than 1234 or repositories/1234. >> > +1 the CLI can resolve name to identifiers (either id or href), so I'm not > too concerned with that. > > [0] https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/blob/ > master/versions/2.0.md#data-types > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 9:51 PM, Dennis Kliban <dkli...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> I've made a work in progress PR[0] that demonstrates the changes I was >> suggesting. >> >> [0] https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3561 >> >> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Having two ways to refer to objects in the API makes me nervous. I have >>> some questions/concerns/ideas. I'm also interested to see what dkliban's >>> bindings produce in terms of a resolution of the swagger issues. >>> >>> Won't it be problematic with the openapi definitions causing us to have >>> two schemas? Accepting the data in two forms is one thing, but using >>> openapi to describe it both ways is something I don't understand well. Are >>> we going to ship and test two? >>> >>> I can see why some users would want to refer to things in the api using >>> ID not an href. I think about the case that when calling publish and >>> referring to a RepositoryVersion with id=827561, num=3, and for >>> repository=1234. With an ID alternately accepted, you could call publish >>> and submit repo_version=827561 instead of >>> repo_version='repositories/1234/version/3/'. >>> I can see that benefit, but it comes with downsides. Saving/storing a url I >>> know feels a little strange, but I do see several upsides... >>> >>> Doing it only with hrefs, ensures those benefits (nice recap btw) will >>> always be true. Having to submit the references using something like >>> 'repositories/1234/version/3/' will cause any client to store them that >>> way. I think that's a good thing because someone troubleshooting their >>> scripts or in katello's db will instead have 'repositories/1234/version/3/', >>> which they can directly use with HTTP. I think this is valuable. Otherwise >>> they would have repo version 827561, which now they have to do extra work >>> to start interacting with that object via HTTP. Storing urls removes the >>> "templating" step from the troubleshooter's responsibilities so we're >>> making their job easier. Spacewise, I don't think the clients benefit >>> hugely from storing 827561 instead of 'repositories/1234/version/3/', >>> but humans do. >>> >>> I don't know much about the CLI, but if we want to enable a specific >>> user experience, I think we can find a way to make that work. Overall I >>> think users should be able to specify things in the most intuitive way >>> possible, and I don't see how API data formats directly influence that. For >>> example I think referring to a repository by it's name is the most natural; >>> it's more natural than 1234 or repositories/1234. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Daniel Alley <dal...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Keep in mind that as of yesterday, unless we revert the change, we are >>>> using Integers IDs instead of UUIDs >>>> >>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3549 >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:57 PM, Bihan Zhang <bizh...@redhat.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Dennis Kliban <dkli...@redhat.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I was asked on IRC to state what problems the proposed changes are >>>>>> trying to address. There are two problems I see with the current OpenAPI >>>>>> 2.0 schema Pulp's REST API provides. >>>>>> >>>>>> - The path parameters in the schema don't reflect the parameters our >>>>>> users should be using for identifying the resources available via REST >>>>>> API. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm not convinced that we should use hrefs as the sole identifiers for >>>>> the resources. >>>>> >>>>> Here are the reasons I see that we use hrefs as identifiers in a REST >>>>> API context: >>>>> 1. Each href provides full context into the resource it >>>>> identifies. When given a href you would know exactly which resource it is >>>>> referencing and would never run into the issue of: what is this {uuid} >>>>> because you know it is a 'repositories/{uuid}' >>>>> 2. discoverability, you know exactly how to access resources from >>>>> hitting the root url (and in a webui can just click) >>>>> 3. You would not need to construct urls from templates >>>>> >>>>> But things are different if we look at it from a bindings/client >>>>> context. The difference is mainly due to how discoverability is done: in >>>>> the REST API context the user has little prior knowledge to what resources >>>>> are available, and how to access theses resoruces. But the bindings/client >>>>> are generated from the schema, which defines exactly how resources are >>>>> structured, and what the context of each {uuid} is. >>>>> >>>>> 1. Given an {uuid} the client/bindings knows exactly what resource >>>>> this {uuid} refers to. With hrefs there would be redundant information >>>>> pulp.repositories('repositories/{uuid}') (why do I need to specify >>>>> repositories twice?) >>>>> 2. Discoverability is done with the schema which contains all the >>>>> information about available resources/endpoints >>>>> 3. URL construction is done by the client, so the user would also >>>>> never need to do any url construction themselves (unless we continue to >>>>> force href only identifiers, in which case they might have to do some url >>>>> construction to pass as arguments) >>>>> >>>>> I don't think hrefs and uuid identifiers are mutually exclusive. I >>>>> propose that we extend HyperlinkedRelatedFields to accept either href or >>>>> uuid, and map these HyperlinkedRelatedFields to each other in the schema >>>>> with openapi definition objects [0]. >>>>> >>>>> [0] https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/blob/master/ver >>>>> sions/2.0.md#responses-definitions-object >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - The path parameters don't have a description in the schema. >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 to updating the schema descriptions for these parameters >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Do others agree with these problem statements? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:31 AM, Dennis Kliban <dkli...@redhat.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I am working on improving the OpenAPI 2.0 schema for Pulp 3. I would >>>>>>> like to get some input on the improvements I am proposing. The schema is >>>>>>> used to generate our REST API documentation as well as the bindings with >>>>>>> swagger-codegen. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The docs generated from our current schema look something like this: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> GET /repositories/{repository_pk}/versions/{number}/content/ >>>>>>> <https://docs.pulpproject.org/en/3.0/nightly/integration-guide/rest-api/index.html#get--repositories-repository_pk-versions-number-content-> >>>>>>> Parameters: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - *number* (*integer*) – >>>>>>> - *repository_pk* (*string*) – >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Status Codes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - 200 OK >>>>>>> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.2.1> >>>>>>> – >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since Pulp identifies resources using their HREFs, I am proposing >>>>>>> that the schema produce documentation that states: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> GET /{repository_version_href}/content/ >>>>>>> Parameters: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - *repository_version_href* (string) – HREF for the repository >>>>>>> version >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Status Codes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - 200 OK >>>>>>> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.2.1> >>>>>>> – >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thoughts? Ideas? All feedback is welcome. Thank you! >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
