On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 12:30 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko <ttere...@redhat.com> wrote:
> To summarize where we are so far: > *All* master/detail related endpoints will be automatically prepended > with Django app *label* [0] > - concerns: 'pulp_' in the label > - options to address concerns: > * introduce a new attribute to the AppConfig class to use in the > endpoints construction (not supported by majority so far) > * drop 'pulp_' part from a *plugin's* app label (supported by > majority so far) > > Questions/concerns about dropping the 'pulp_' from the plugins' app label: > > # Table names in the DB are prepended using the app label. We need to be > sure to avoid collisions with other applications for pulpcore and for pulp > plugins. Are they already in the "pulp" database? > Yes, all pulpcore and pulp plugin tables are in "pulp" database. > > # The names in the list of installed plugins would then not be the same as > the packages themselves. > It's probably ok. The status would look like this: > { > "component": "*file*", > "version": "0.0.1b6" > }, > { > "component": "*rpm*", > "version": "3.0.0b1" > } > For the status api, we could use `name` rather than `label`: { "component": "*pulp_file.app*", "version": "0.0.1b6" }, > # What about the label for the core? (not discussed) > It stays as is - 'pulp_app'. > > [0] > https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/2.1/ref/applications/#django.apps.AppConfig.label > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 8:22 PM Daniel Alley <dal...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> I'm not opposed to this plan, I just want to point out that it would make >> the status API make slightly less sense. The names in the list of >> installed plugins would then not be the same as the packages themselves. >> It's probably close enough as to not be a problem though. >> >> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 12:23 PM Austin Macdonald <amacd...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 12:12 PM Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> My understanding is that it's for both. It would be dropped from >>>> app_label and that will automatically be used in master/detail urls. Is >>>> that what others thought? >>>> >>>> This seems like the simplest approach to me. My only concern with this >>> approach is making sure that the database will be properly namespaced so >>> there won't be collisions with other applications that use postgres like >>> Katello. AFAIK, the plugin tables don't need to be namespaced since they >>> are already in the "pulp" database. Is that correct? If so, +1. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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