#3801 only describes the move from CursorPagination to PageNumberPagination. I don't think we considered using LimitOffsetPagination.
David On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 1:01 PM Dennis Kliban <dkli...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 12:17 PM Brian Bouterse <bmbou...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> Recently with pulp_ansible, users were interested in using pagination >> with LimitOffsetPagination [0]. Pulp currently defaults to >> PageNumberPagination. I looked at our current DRF defaults, and I noticed >> two things. >> >> 1. We default to the not-as-common PageNumberPagination based on examples >> in the drf docs. >> 2. We customize it here [1] in various ways. >> >> Can someone help me remember why these pagination style choices were made >> or where the requirements came from? >> > > I believe the motivation is described here: > https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3801 > > >> Would our bindings work with a LimitOffsetPagination style? >> > > Yes, the bindings will work with anything that uses query parameters for > pagination. > > >> What use cases drove the use and customization in this area? >> >> Also, @katello how would a pagination style change (like switching to >> LimitOffsetPagination) affect you? >> >> Thanks for any info you can provide. Maybe what we have right now is just >> what we need, but I'm not sure. >> >> -Brian >> >> [0]: >> https://www.django-rest-framework.org/api-guide/pagination/#setting-the-pagination-style >> [1]: >> https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/blob/master/pulpcore/app/pagination.py >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
