On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 5:52 PM Brian Bouterse <bmbou...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 5:23 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko <ttere...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> I think the main confusion I have is that we call it validation. >> Semantically, I'd expect the validation operation to complain if something >> is invalid and to pass if everything is fine. >> > > Yes let's have validation perform, just validation. Thank you for bringing > us back to this. +1 > > >> The solution [0] also implies that I think: >> Raises: >> django.core.exceptions.ValidationError: if the repository is >> invalid >> >> As I mentioned below I think a plugin needs to have an ability to change >> the content of a repo version, it sounds more than just validation to me. >> Let me know if I misunderstand something or misuse any terms. >> > I agree. What about if we add add_content, remove_content classmethod for > plugin writers to override on their Content subclass, and these were called > by RepositoryVersion.add_content and RepositoryVersion.remove_content? > These would be hooks similar to the validation hook, only these are > designed to "handle" changes. The queryset would be type-filtered in the > RepositoryVersion.add_content and RepositoryVersion.remove_content, so each > Content model's implementation only needs to handle it's own type and it > can rely on that. I'm open to other pattern suggestions with a similar > outcome. > +1 to this idea. Thank you! As we discussed offline, let's additionally pass a repo version itself to add_content/remove_content plugin classmethod because for some content types it's necessary to have access to other types in a repo version. E.g. modulemd and its RPMs. > > This would handle the Advisory-merge use case for pulp_rpm for example. > The Advisory object would define these two hook implementations, and when > adding it would provide the merge-with-existing-content feature. > > We may need to take care that references to content could be invalidated > anytime a call to RepositoryVersion.add_content or > RepositoryVersion.remove_content occurs. That sounds do-able but it becomes > a somewhat subtle requirement. > +1 to the concern Additionally, new content can be added during those calls. E.g. Advisory merge = removal of old one, addition of newly created one. > > I don't think this would fully handle the dependency use case though. This > type of pattern only can account for the content that is already in the > repsitory_version being created. So it lacks a reference to for example > where content is being copied from, and what source content set it should > look into to even provide dependency resolution. Also at sync-time it > couldn't know if the packages it's "going to bring in extra" are just > coming in a later part of the pipeline. So while I think we should > implement these hooks, it doesn't solve the dependency solving use case. > I'm ok w/ that, but what do you think? > I think it's fine. Dependency solving is a pure copy case, in my opinion, so I'm not concerned that we don't cover it in the generic way for every repo version. Tanya > > >> I keep thinking these use cases are for copy not sync, because only in >>> the copy case is the plugin writer's code not already involved. >> >> I think any use case that modifies repo version in some way is important >> here - sync, copy, upload, removal of content. >> It's just happened that for sync we already have a mechanism for plugins >> to influence the result, however it can likely be simplified and reuse what >> will be implemented for the story [0] under discussion. >> >> Tanya >> >> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3541#note-3 >> >> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 11:01 PM Brian Bouterse <bmbou...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:55 PM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I think @bmbouter's solution could handle the first example of checking >>>> RPMs against a specific key. >>>> >>>> The second example is trickier though because the validation would have >>>> to know which module is being removed in order to know which packages to >>>> remove from the repo. This is because the packages could exist in the repo >>>> independently of the module. I think it'd have to have the list of >>>> additions/removals in order to handle that use case. >>>> >>> >>> It would have reference to the repo_version being created, so I think it >>> would have the RepositoryVersion.removed queryset to inspect. I think this >>> is mainly useful for copy operations at which point the copy endpoint may >>> be a better tool for features like plugin-provided dependency resolution >>> versus the generic copy operations in core. >>> >>> I keep thinking these use cases are for copy not sync, because only in >>> the copy case is the plugin writer's code not already involved. >>> >>> >>>> David >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 12:55 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko < >>>> ttere...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The solution proposed in #3541 looks good for validation purposes. >>>>> My understanding of the problem is that a plugin needs to apply some >>>>> logic and decide which content to keep and which content to remove at repo >>>>> version creation time and perform these changes. >>>>> Examples: >>>>> - add to a repo version only RPMs signed with a specific key >>>>> - removal of the moduled content should automagically remove related >>>>> RPMs from a repo version. >>>>> >>>>> In theory, for the examples above, if we have validation only, user >>>>> can be forced to prepare perfect add/remove requests, however I think it >>>>> won't be a good user experience. >>>>> >>>>> Can it be done in the same way as the suggestion for validation? Just >>>>> if it makes sense for plugin to "fix" repo version itself, they will do >>>>> it, >>>>> otherwise validation error can be raised. What do you think? >>>>> >>>>> Tanya >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 4:46 PM Dennis Kliban <dkli...@redhat.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The plan outlined in 3541 solves the problem in a way that gives >>>>>> plugin writers a lot of control. +1 to implementing it. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 12:23 PM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> We have a blocker for Pulp 3.0 GA[0] that we need to address soon in >>>>>>> order to let plugins leverage it in their upcoming GA releases. It >>>>>>> involves >>>>>>> allowing plugin writers to validate content in a repo version. It's >>>>>>> somewhat related to validating uniqueness in a repo version[1] except >>>>>>> there >>>>>>> are cases other than uniqueness that plugins might want to handle. One >>>>>>> example might be a case where we want to prevent a user from adding a >>>>>>> docker tag that points to a manifest outside a repo from getting added >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> the repo. I'm not sure if this is an actual example but it gives you an >>>>>>> idea that there might be other non-unique validation plugin writers >>>>>>> might >>>>>>> want to add. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Brian proposed a solution on 3541 that I think solves the >>>>>>> problem[2]. I was hoping to maybe get some feedback on it so we could >>>>>>> proceed by October 9. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3541 >>>>>>> [1] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5008 >>>>>>> [2] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3541 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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