I agree. +1. I revised the story to include the Publication attribute pass_through which is a Boolean and defaults to False, so the feature is disabled by default.
Sound ok? https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4020 On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 2:04 PM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> wrote: > What about the case where a plugin publishes a subset of content from the > repo version? Then the content app might match something it’s not supposed > to. > > I think @jortel mentioned having an option on the publication to pass > through requests to the repo version if there’s no published artifact. That > seems safer. > > David > > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 1:54 PM Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> Thank you for all this feedback. I'm convinced that we should leave >> PublishedArtifact and PublishedMetadata as is w.r.t ticket #4020. I've >> revised it as such. >> >> For the plugin writer I'm working with, they do want to have the >> ContentArtifact.relative_path be the final repository layout. So now the >> scope of work for #4020 is only to extend the content app to search >> ContentArtifact.relative_path before returning the 404 if no >> PublishedArtifact or PublishedMetadata objects match for that publication. >> >> What about doing that? Also I'm kind of hoping to deliver this code to >> the plugin writer kind of soon. Thank you again for all the great input >> here and on the input. >> >> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 8:59 AM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I think that pulp_deb could maybe create its own association between >>> publication and artifacts. The problem is that PublishedArtifacts is a >>> one-size-fits-all solution that probably ought to be instead implemented in >>> plugins that require some specialized way to join publications and >>> artifacts. >>> >>> David >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 4:51 AM Matthias Dellweg <dell...@atix.de> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Not entierly sure, that this is related, but a while ago, we laid out a >>>> road map for the pulp3_deb plugin [1]. It includes 8 different >>>> publishers, that publish different metadata for the same repository >>>> version. As far as i understand, that is exactly, what >>>> PublishedArtifacts are for. If it were possible to just use ordinary >>>> Artifacts and associate them with a Publication instead of a >>>> RepositoryVersion it might be ok in that context. >>>> >>>> Cheers, Matthias >>>> >>>> [1] https://etherpad.net/p/pulp-deb-pulp3/timeslider#2902 >>>> >>>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 12:45:15 -0400 >>>> Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> > A plugin writer (@oleksander) pointed out to me that PublishedArtifact >>>> > seems a bit out of place for his usage. I can see why he thinks that, >>>> > and after thinking about it, Pulp does seem a bit over-complicated in >>>> > this area. I've written [0] to describe the problem, promote >>>> > discussion of this issue, and hopefully decide on a resolution. >>>> > >>>> > [0]: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4020 >>>> > >>>> > Discussion and collaboration is welcome! >>>> > >>>> > -Brian >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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
