It's seems that there is a consensus that all master/detail related endpoints should be prepended. There is no consensus if the current Django app label is good enough to use in the construction of the endpoints.
My personal opinion: It's probably better if "pulp_" part goes away, at the same time I'm hesitant to add new attributes to configuration, since Django provides enough of them and gives us uniqueness check for free. See Django docs https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/2.1/ref/applications/#configurable-attributes Label is supposed to be a short name for the app. Please vote and/or raise your concerns if you have any by next Friday, voting will be closed on Jan 11, 2019 at 8:00PM EST. The proposal is described in https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4279 My vote: +1 for automatic namespacing for all master/detail endpoints +1 to use existing Django app label Thank you, Tanya On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 1:15 PM Ina Panova <ipan...@redhat.com> wrote: > +1 namespacing all master/detail > > For consistency, i would prefer to see same format i see in > `content_summary` as in content endpoints, even if it does not make sense > from user's perspective, because what we now have in content_summary, i > would not say that it makes much sense from user's perspective ;) > > -------- > Regards, > > Ina Panova > Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc. > > "Do not go where the path may lead, > go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." > > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 8:55 PM Austin Macdonald <amacd...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> +1 automatic namespacing for master/detail. I realize the easiest way to >> do this would be to use the app_label, giving us: >> >> /api/v3/content/pulp_rpm/packages/ >> >> >> However, I feel like this url is pretty clunky. The "pulp_" is totally >> unnecessary, from the user's perspective. Instead, I think I'd prefer to >> add an attribute to the App config. >> >> https://github.com/pulp/plugin_template/blob/master/pulp_plugin_template/app/__init__.py#L8 >> >> `endpoint_namespace = rpm` or `short_label = rpm` >> >> Result: /api/v3/content/rpm/packages/ >> >> The downside is that every plugin would need 1 more line of code. The >> upside is that we could implement it exactly same way as app_label but >> without url redundancy. >> >> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 2:39 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko <ttere...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >>> It would be automatic, and plugins need a change only to avoid redundant >>> prepending. >>> E.g. If RPM plugin makes no changes, the endpoint for RPM content will >>> be: >>> >>> /api/v3/content/pulp_rpm/rpm/packages/ >>> >>> because endpoint_name = 'rpm/packages'. >>> >>> So plugin should leave only endpoint_name = 'packages'. >>> >>> The endpoint with redundant plugin name will work fine, just doesn't look >>> good :) >>> >>> Tanya >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 7:20 PM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I am +1 to namespacing all master detail models with the plugin name. >>>> Would this be automatic or something that the plugin writers would be >>>> encouraged to do? >>>> >>>> David >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 12:58 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko < >>>> ttere...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thank you all for the discussion so far. >>>>> The question - the type field and namespacing in content summary - is >>>>> solved with https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4185. >>>>> >>>>> The last remaining question is whether we want to prepend endpoints >>>>> for master/detail models with plugin label. If yes, then everything or for >>>>> Content only. >>>>> See details on the issue https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4279. >>>>> >>>>> Examples of the suggested change: >>>>> >>>>> /api/v3/content/rpm/packages/ --> /api/v3/content/pulp_rpm/packages/ >>>>> /api/v3/remotes/rpm/ --> /api/v3/content/remotes/pulp_rpm/rpm/ >>>>> /api/v3/publishers/rpm/ --> /api/v3/content/publishers/pulp_rpm/rpm/ >>>>> >>>>> Changes which will be needed in plugins: >>>>> - adjust the value of the `endpoint_name` attribute in the viewsets we >>>>> introduce changes to >>>>> >>>>> Please provide feedback, here or on the issue >>>>> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4279. >>>>> This is an RC blocker, so it would be great to groom it over the next >>>>> couple of days. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> Tanya >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 9:41 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko < >>>>> ttere...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Since we are leaning towards prepending types for _all_ master/detail >>>>>> models and not only for the content model, that Django fix is no longer >>>>>> important for us. >>>>>> >>>>>> Tanya >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 6:18 PM Daniel Alley <dal...@redhat.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> David, was that a vote to make it explicit? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would regard this as fairly intuitive as far as "magic-ness" goes, >>>>>>> acceptable from the user POV in my opinion. And if Django is explicitly >>>>>>> trying to support this functionality and relies on it working properly, >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> has a unittest for it going forwards, then I'm fairly confident it >>>>>>> won't be >>>>>>> too fragile. My vote is +1. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My only concern (and it's not a major one) is that a plugin that >>>>>>> needed to be renamed might have problems with this. But I think that >>>>>>> would >>>>>>> be resolvable with a migration. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tanya, will we need to remove the workaround once Django 2.2 comes >>>>>>> out? If so, we should file a Refactor task for it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:39 AM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> David >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:31 AM Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is also an issue w/ my suggestion in that it's highly >>>>>>>>> magical. The class name is likely going to go through a case mutation >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> if not it's going to be finicky in terms of its case. So now I'm >>>>>>>>> thinking >>>>>>>>> the plugin writer should have to define it to keep it simple and >>>>>>>>> explicit >>>>>>>>> (not implicit and magical). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:27 AM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Would it be possible to default to class name but let plugin >>>>>>>>>> writers override this? I would imagine in some cases plugin writers >>>>>>>>>> might >>>>>>>>>> want to change the name (eg cases where you can't use type as the >>>>>>>>>> class >>>>>>>>>> name like File). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> David >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:23 AM Brian Bouterse < >>>>>>>>>> bbout...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:07 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko < >>>>>>>>>>> ttere...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Brian, >>>>>>>>>>>> the current PR [0] does exactly what you describe, it uses >>>>>>>>>>>> label which is taken from the plugin subclass of >>>>>>>>>>>> PulpPluginAppconfig + TYPE >>>>>>>>>>>> defined on the detail model. >>>>>>>>>>>> FWIW, there is an option to use plugin class name and not a >>>>>>>>>>>> plugin writer defined TYPE, e.g. pulp_file.filecontent, >>>>>>>>>>>> pulp_rpm.package, >>>>>>>>>>>> pulp_rpm.updaterecord, etc. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> +1 to using the classname. Having the plugin class name used >>>>>>>>>>> would allow the user to not repeat themselves as much. I think it's >>>>>>>>>>> likely >>>>>>>>>>> the class name == TYPE in almost all cases. The plugin writer would >>>>>>>>>>> have 1 >>>>>>>>>>> less requirement on them at Content model definition time and that >>>>>>>>>>> helps >>>>>>>>>>> achieve the "less burden on plugin writers" goal for pulp. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jeff, to answer your questions: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. why do all the plugins begin with "pulp_"? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This is how django app label is defined in every plugin so far, >>>>>>>>>>>> see pulp_file case [1]. >>>>>>>>>>>> Whatever is defined there is used as a plugin name. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. can the plugin name get pre-pended when it's loaded by core? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I lean toward TYPE=<plugin>.<type> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Just to clarify, there is a class arttriburte `TYPE` and there >>>>>>>>>>>> is a `type` field on a model. I guess you suggest type = >>>>>>>>>>>> <plugin>.<TYPE>. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We can probably do it on a master model in the save method [2], >>>>>>>>>>>> just initially the change was proposed for Content models only. >>>>>>>>>>>> If we decide to namespace all master/detail objects, I agree we >>>>>>>>>>>> can do it n a more generic way, than just redefine __init__ on a >>>>>>>>>>>> specific >>>>>>>>>>>> class. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Tanya >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [0] https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3801 >>>>>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_file/blob/24881314372b9c1c505ff687c15238126b261afa/pulp_file/app/__init__.py#L10 >>>>>>>>>>>> [2] >>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp/blob/master/pulpcore/app/models/base.py#L76-L83 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 12:58 PM Ina Panova <ipan...@redhat.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to namespace master/detail as well. >>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to Brian's suggestion to try. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -------- >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ina Panova >>>>>>>>>>>>> Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Do not go where the path may lead, >>>>>>>>>>>>> go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 12:15 AM Brian Bouterse < >>>>>>>>>>>>> bbout...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to namespacing all Master/Detail objects (Remotes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Publishers, etc). Namespacing will increase consistency w/ the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> user >>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience and will avoid plugin-to-plugin naming collisions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> @ttereshc +1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the url changes and content summary changes you've described. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it would be ideal if the app specified its 'label' >>>>>>>>>>>>>> attribute on the PulpPluginAppconfig subclass, e.g here in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pulp_file >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_file/blob/24881314372b9c1c505ff687c15238126b261afa/pulp_file/app/__init__.py#L10 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then the Model for, e.g. the FileContent would have the second >>>>>>>>>>>>>> portion of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the string 'file' as an example and Master/Detail would assemble >>>>>>>>>>>>>> them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this implementation how you imagined it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:29 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ttere...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >> >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
