On Mon, 2011-08-15 at 10:27 -0500, Jeff Ortel wrote:
> Last sprint, I reviewed both consumer and consumer group flows as related to
> package &
> package group install. This includes packages installed as part of errata
> installs as
> well. In each of these flows, the consumers, consumergroups and repositories
> controllers
> instrument the returned task dict with a "status_path". The path is call
> back into the
> controller with the task ID. Each of these (3) controllers have duplicate
> implementations
> as follows:
>
> <snip>
> task_info = self.task_status(action_id)
> if task_info is None:
> return self.not_found('No %s with id %s found' % (action_name, action_id))
> return self.ok(task_info)
> </snip>
>
> We also have a Task WS controller added primarily for debugging which can
> also be query a
> task by ID which returns a summary of the task including its status. Last
> sprint I added
> the "job" stuff and chose not to follow this pattern as it seemed to add
> complexity and no
> value (unless I missed something).
>
> Since we now have a REST api to query for both job and task summary
> information, I'd like
> discontinue the use of task['status_path'] and simply have the CLI (and misc
> clients) use
> the JobAPI.info() and TaskAPI.info() when polling for job/task status. To do
> this, I
> would need to change perms on controllers/Task.GET() from
> super_user_only=True to: READ.
>
> Any Objections?
>
> Is there value in the current approach that I'm missing?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-list mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-listThis actually seems like a perfectly reasonable approach to me that will not only cleanup our code base, but also take advantage of the new task query api for something more than just debugging. The original 'status_path' was implemented for the 1-off async call of repo sync, and then duplicated as we added more async calls. It makes much more sense to keep only 1 call in the api to check the status of these tasks instead of 4. Changing the permissions is also a non-issue as they only reflected the original debugging motivation behind implementing the task api in the first place. In fact, I'd take the proposal a step further and suggest that we use the task api to cancel async tasks as well instead of individually implemented one-offs in the apis like we currently have. Nice proposal Jeff. :) -- Jason L Connor linear on freenode #pulp http://pulpproject.org/ RHCE: 805010912355231 GPG Fingerprint: 2048R/CC4ED7C1
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Pulp-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
