Just to clarify, the type field is not used in the endpoint construction, so two changes described in the original e-mail are independent.
In my opinion: - it is possible to have type collisions. - it is possible to have the same endpoints (endpoint_name in a viewset). FWIW, the endpoint collision is not unique to the master/detail models' endpoints. A plugin, in theory, can define any endpoint they want. Though not preventing collisions it for endpoints related to master/detail models makes it easier to create such collision accidentally. Tanya On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 2:27 PM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> wrote: > Is it possible (under the current model, without namespacing) to have type > collisions in the database for master/detail models? Like what if two > plugins define two Contents with the same type or two Remotes with the same > type? This kind of leads me to believe we should namespace everything. On > the Ansible plugin for example, I started working on a git Remote[0]. > Luckily I chose "ansible_git" as the type but I could see plugin writers > running into problems if they are not so careful. > > [0] > https://github.com/pulp/pulp_ansible/pull/38/files#diff-debb42c875c19140793de39be3696ee3 > > David > > > On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 4:41 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko <ttere...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> There is an issue [0] of colliding type names in the content summary >> which evolved into more general namespacing problem for plugins. >> >> The suggested changes [1] are: >> 1. include plugin name into the content summary >> >> "content_summary": { >> "pulp_rpm.package": 50, >> "pulp_rpm.errata": 2, >> "pulp_file.file": 5 >> } >> >> >> 2. include plugin name into content endpoints >> /api/v3/content/file/files/ --> /api/v3/content/pulp_file/files/ >> /api/v3/content/rpm/packages/ --> /api/v3/content/pulp_rpm/packages/ >> /api/v3/content/rpm/errata/ --> /api/v3/content/pulp_rpm/errata/ >> ... >> >> For the change #1, not only content summary output is changed but the >> type itself in the database. If the content type is used somewhere in the >> filters, it should be specified in that format: "plugin_name.plugin_type". >> Does it makes sense to extend the master model and have a plugin name field >> and a type field, instead of putting preformatted string into the type >> field? >> >> For the change #2, endpoints are namespaced only for the content endpoint >> and not for other endpoints related to master/detail models, like remotes, >> publishers, etc. It's inconsistent, however it makes the most sense to have >> it for content endpoints. >> >> Any concerns or thoughts? >> >> Thank you, >> Tanya >> >> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4185#note-8 >> [1] https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3801 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
