Let's continue with hte original proposal and keep the URLs. On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 5:51 PM Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> 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 <dal...@redhat.com> 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 <jor...@redhat.com> 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 >>> 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
