On 1/9/19 11:30 AM, Tatiana Tereshchenko 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"
}
# What about the label for the core? (not discussed)
It stays as is - 'pulp_app'.
Why? Seems like 'core' would be more descriptive.
[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
<mailto: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 <mailto:amacd...@redhat.com>> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 12:12 PM Brian Bouterse
<bbout...@redhat.com <mailto: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 <mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com>
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
_______________________________________________
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com <mailto: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
