+1 to facilitate the upload process. At the conferences, there have been many users pointing out how inconvenient current upload process is .
-------- 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 Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 8:42 PM Austin Macdonald <aus...@redhat.com> wrote: > Originally, our upload story was as follows: > The user will upload a new file to Pulp via POST to /artifacts/ (provided > by core) > The user will create a new plugin specific Content via POST to > /path/to/plugin/content/, referencing whatever artifacts that are > contained, and whatever fields are expected for the new content. > The user will add the new content to a repository via POST to > /repositories/1/versions/ > > However, this is somewhat cumbersome to the user with 3 API calls to > accomplish something that only took one call in Pulp 2. > > There are a couple of different paths plugins have taken to improve the > user experience: > The Python plugin follows the above workflow, but reads the Artifact file > to determine the values for the fields. The RPM plugin has gone even > farther and created a new endpoint for "one shot" upload that perform all > of this in a single call. I think it is likely that the Python plugin will > move more in the "one shot" direction, and other plugins will probably > follow. > > That said, I think we should discuss this as a community to encourage > plugins to behave similarly, and because there may also be a possibility > for sharing some of code. It is my hope that a "one shot upload" could do 2 > things: 1) Upload and create Content. 2) Optionally add that content to > repositories. > _______________________________________________ > 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
