On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:57 PM Dennis Kliban <dkli...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:34 AM Dennis Kliban <dkli...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:20 AM Justin Sherrill <jsher...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >>> If a plugin provided multiple remotes, for example, what would that look >>> like? >>> >>> in your example: >>> >>> -file_remote = >>> fileremotes.remotes_file_file_create(remote_data)+file_remote = >>> fileremotes.create(remote_data) >>> >>> Lets say the file plugin provided some other remote that still synced file >>> content? >>> >>> >> The goal is to provide separate API objects for each remote or content >> type that a plugin provides. So the code would look like this: >> >> file_remote = fileremote.create(remote_data) >> file_fancy_remote = filefancyremote.create(fancy_remote_data) >> >> My current implementation does not support this, but I am working toward >> the above solution. >> > > I was able to achieve this. I posted some screen shots of what the docs > look like here[0]. > > Docker has multiple content types. So docker bindings would provide the > following objects: ContentDockerBlobsApi, ContentDockerManifestListTagsApi, > ContentDockerManifestListsApi, ContentDockerManifestTagsApi, and > ContentDockerManifestsApi. > > I updated my patch and removed the plugin name from the Api object names. So the above objects are now ContentBlobsApi, ContentManifestListTagsApi, ContentManifestListsApi, ContentManifestTagsApi, and ContentManifestsApi. I have 2 PRs for this change[0,1]. The use of the bindings can be seen in both of the PR. I'd like to get this work merged today. [0] https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/178 [1] https://github.com/pulp/pulp-openapi-generator/pull/18 Each of those objects would have a create(), read(), delete(), list() > methods. > > Do others agree that this improves the usability of the bindings? > > > [0] https://imgur.com/a/Ag7gqmj > > >> >> >>> >>> Justin >>> >>> On 6/19/19 9:45 AM, Dennis Kliban wrote: >>> >>> I didn't get a note in my email, but I did see one on in the list >>> archive[0]. So here is my response to it: >>> >>> I agree that we could use modified templates to achieve the same >>> results. However, that means that we will need to modify templates for >>> every language we want to generate bindings in. In both cases the generated >>> client code will be exactly the same. From a maintenance perspective, it is >>> easier to add a feature to Pulp's REST API that produces a modified version >>> of the OpenAPI schema. It also means that we can always use the latest >>> versions of the templates shipped with openapi-generator. >>> >>> The documentation site would continue to distribute an OpenAPI schema >>> where each Operation Id is unique. >>> >>> Pulp's OpenAPI schema does not currently pass validation because the >>> paths are not unique. In order to use the 'href' of each resource as the >>> primary identifier, it was necessary to template paths as {artifact_href}, >>> {repository_href}, {file_content_href}, etc. This schema cannot be used to >>> generate server code. However, it works well when generating client code. >>> The non-unique operation ids would be a problem for generating a server >>> also. However, they don't produce problems when generating client code. >>> >>> Does this address your concerns? >>> >>> [0] https://www.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/2019-June/msg00061.html >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:54 AM Dennis Kliban <dkli...@redhat.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> As pointed out in a recent issue[0], the method names in the bindings >>>> generated from Pulp's OpenAPI schema are unnecessarily verbose. Each method >>>> name corresponds to an Operation Id in the OpenAPI schema. The Operation Id >>>> is also used as an HTML anchor in the REST API docs[1]. >>>> >>>> It is possible to generate a schema where each Operation Id is shorter, >>>> but then the Operation Ids are not unique and all the linking in the REST >>>> API documentation breaks. We can avoid this problem by keeping the long >>>> Operation Id for the schema generated for the docs and only using short >>>> Operation Ids when generating the schema for the bindings. >>>> >>>> The difference in usage of the bindings can be seen here[2]. >>>> >>>> Is there any objection to including such a change in time for RC 3? >>>> >>>> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4989 >>>> [1] https://docs.pulpproject.org/en/3.0/nightly/restapi.html >>>> [2] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4989#note-1 >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pulp-dev mailing >>> listPulp-dev@redhat.comhttps://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:57 PM Dennis Kliban <dkli...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:34 AM Dennis Kliban <dkli...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:20 AM Justin Sherrill <jsher...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >>> If a plugin provided multiple remotes, for example, what would that look >>> like? >>> >>> in your example: >>> >>> -file_remote = >>> fileremotes.remotes_file_file_create(remote_data)+file_remote = >>> fileremotes.create(remote_data) >>> >>> Lets say the file plugin provided some other remote that still synced file >>> content? >>> >>> >> The goal is to provide separate API objects for each remote or content >> type that a plugin provides. So the code would look like this: >> >> file_remote = fileremote.create(remote_data) >> file_fancy_remote = filefancyremote.create(fancy_remote_data) >> >> My current implementation does not support this, but I am working toward >> the above solution. >> > > I was able to achieve this. I posted some screen shots of what the docs > look like here[0]. > > Docker has multiple content types. So docker bindings would provide the > following objects: ContentDockerBlobsApi, ContentDockerManifestListTagsApi, > ContentDockerManifestListsApi, ContentDockerManifestTagsApi, and > ContentDockerManifestsApi. > > Each of those objects would have a create(), read(), delete(), list() > methods. > > Do others agree that this improves the usability of the bindings? > > > [0] https://imgur.com/a/Ag7gqmj > > >> >> >>> >>> Justin >>> >>> On 6/19/19 9:45 AM, Dennis Kliban wrote: >>> >>> I didn't get a note in my email, but I did see one on in the list >>> archive[0]. So here is my response to it: >>> >>> I agree that we could use modified templates to achieve the same >>> results. However, that means that we will need to modify templates for >>> every language we want to generate bindings in. In both cases the generated >>> client code will be exactly the same. From a maintenance perspective, it is >>> easier to add a feature to Pulp's REST API that produces a modified version >>> of the OpenAPI schema. It also means that we can always use the latest >>> versions of the templates shipped with openapi-generator. >>> >>> The documentation site would continue to distribute an OpenAPI schema >>> where each Operation Id is unique. >>> >>> Pulp's OpenAPI schema does not currently pass validation because the >>> paths are not unique. In order to use the 'href' of each resource as the >>> primary identifier, it was necessary to template paths as {artifact_href}, >>> {repository_href}, {file_content_href}, etc. This schema cannot be used to >>> generate server code. However, it works well when generating client code. >>> The non-unique operation ids would be a problem for generating a server >>> also. However, they don't produce problems when generating client code. >>> >>> Does this address your concerns? >>> >>> [0] https://www.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/2019-June/msg00061.html >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:54 AM Dennis Kliban <dkli...@redhat.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> As pointed out in a recent issue[0], the method names in the bindings >>>> generated from Pulp's OpenAPI schema are unnecessarily verbose. Each method >>>> name corresponds to an Operation Id in the OpenAPI schema. The Operation Id >>>> is also used as an HTML anchor in the REST API docs[1]. >>>> >>>> It is possible to generate a schema where each Operation Id is shorter, >>>> but then the Operation Ids are not unique and all the linking in the REST >>>> API documentation breaks. We can avoid this problem by keeping the long >>>> Operation Id for the schema generated for the docs and only using short >>>> Operation Ids when generating the schema for the bindings. >>>> >>>> The difference in usage of the bindings can be seen here[2]. >>>> >>>> Is there any objection to including such a change in time for RC 3? >>>> >>>> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4989 >>>> [1] https://docs.pulpproject.org/en/3.0/nightly/restapi.html >>>> [2] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4989#note-1 >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pulp-dev mailing >>> listPulp-dev@redhat.comhttps://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>> >>>
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
