How are these URLs being populated? What if the plugin writer puts her content URLs at a different place like /pulp_rpm/content/packages or something?
David On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 8:38 PM Dana Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree that the "human usable" route makes sense. > > We want to make this as easy to use as possible. > > --Dana > > Dana Walker > > Associate Software Engineer > > Red Hat > > <https://www.redhat.com> > <https://red.ht/sig> > > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 5:51 PM Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I commented on the PR that I think we should include the URLs and here's >> the reasoning: >> https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3774#issuecomment-446633354 >> >> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 5:29 PM Daniel Alley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Just thought of something. The URLs for specific content types are at >>>> the discretion of the plugin writer so now I'm not convinced the user >>>> has a way to reliably construct the URLs themselves. >>> >>> >>> Yup, this is my view. The counterargument Dennis has been making is >>> that the user could either A) use the live API docs to find out what URL to >>> hit, B) find it in the hosted docs, or C) use the bindings generated from >>> the schema, the name of the function is documented and you don't need to >>> care about the URL. >>> >>> I suppose it depends on exactly how frequently users actually need to >>> view/search on the content present in a repository version. If it's a rare >>> need, then maybe that extra friction is OK. If it is common, it could be a >>> pain point -- or perhaps people will just memorize all the endpoints they >>> need to use and it won't be a big deal, I don't really know. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 1:14 PM Jeff Ortel <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On 12/10/18 1:06 PM, Jeff Ortel wrote: >>>> > +1 to counts instead of URLs. The URLs are documented and can be >>>> > constructed to listing them on the serialized version does not seem >>>> to >>>> > add much value. The counts would likely provide more useful >>>> > information and consistent with the summary counts. >>>> >>>> Just thought of something. The URLs for specific content types are at >>>> the discretion of the plugin writer so now I'm not convinced the user >>>> has a way to reliably construct the URLs themselves. >>>> >>>> > >>>> > On 12/7/18 1:30 PM, Dennis Kliban wrote: >>>> >> What if instead the API returned the number of each content type >>>> >> added or removed. So a repository version response would look like: >>>> >> >>>> >> {'base_version': None, >>>> >> 'content_added': {'pulp_file.file': 4}, >>>> >> 'content_removed': {'pulp_file.file': 1}, >>>> >> 'content_summary': {'pulp_file.file': '3'}, >>>> >> 'created': datetime.datetime(2018, 12, 5, 23, 34, 26, 948749, >>>> >> tzinfo=tzlocal()), >>>> >> 'href': '/pulp/api/v3/repositories/4/versions/1/', >>>> >> 'number': 1} >>>> >> >>>> >> Thoughts? >>>> > >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > 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
