> > Given that single-artifact Content is likely to be a very common pattern > among plugins, maybe it would be best to add this as a mixin for pulpcore. > If that's the future of this field, we should definitely make it _artifact.
+1 to this, I don't much like having to redefine this in every plugin. I'm curious about how to make it work with the serializers though. On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 10:13 AM Austin Macdonald <amacd...@redhat.com> wrote: > We have single-artifact Content in Docker as well. I've gone ahead and > named the field _artifact. > > Given that single-artifact Content is likely to be a very common pattern > among plugins, maybe it would be best to add this as a mixin for pulpcore. > If that's the future of this field, we should definitely make it _artifact. > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 12:24 PM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> In most plugins, Content only has a single artifact so we created a >> virtual field 'artifact' that we expose to end users. In a recent >> change[0], we prefixed the Content fields with underscores ('_') so we're >> considering renaming the field to '_artifact' to be consistent with other >> plugins that have '_artifacts' on Content. We could use some feedback by >> sprint planning (Jan 4) either here or on the issue: >> >> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4282 >> >> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4206 >> >> David >> _______________________________________________ >> 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