[Pulp-dev] Help us test the new tasking system please

If you use the latest commit from pulp_installer which has this PR merged, you'll see the line below in your `example.dev-config.yml`. Please add this to your `local.dev-config.yml`, and re-vagrant up. This enables the new-style tasking system in d

[Pulp-dev] pulpcore==3.14 pre-release planning -- target date June 29th

See the discussion details here: https://github.com/pulp/community/discussions/22 ___ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] pulpcore meeting minutes

See them posted to the discussions thread here: https://github.com/pulp/community/discussions/8#discussioncomment-840117 ___ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] pulpcore team meeting notes - May 25, 2021

epos > > The idea is that I can partition ACLs for various functions of Pulp to > prevent unwanted actions. > > > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 10:56 AM Brian Bouterse > wrote: > > > > Hi Neal, > > > > Apologies for the late reply. We've added the RBAC to various

Re: [Pulp-dev] [Pulp-list] Github Discussions

I did this also for the pulpcore meeting: https://github.com/pulp/community/discussions/8 My format was a little different, but the same idea. On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 10:13 AM Grant Gainey wrote: > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 9:40 AM David Davis wrote: > >> Based on feedback, I've moved discussions

Re: [Pulp-dev] pulpcore team meeting notes - May 25, 2021

Brian On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 11:46 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 11:23 AM Brian Bouterse > wrote: > > > > * Making top-level Authentication page in docs > > * https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8799 > > The docs currently mention that RBAC stuff is plan

[Pulp-dev] pulpcore meeting - June 1, 2021

Posted as discussion here: https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/discussions/1379 ___ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] pulpcore team meeting notes - May 25, 2021

## Topics * Is this a bug or intentional? * https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8798 * [outcome] probably not intentional * we cache these results to avoid recalculating them constantly * Non-blocking orphan cleanup https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7659 * Plugin code needs to update time

[Pulp-dev] pulpcore team meeting notes - May 18, 2021

## Topics * Docs Backlog ( let's time box it 20mins) * https://tinyurl.com/36hc2c9h * 3.13.0 release moved to Monday May 24 * single container requires plugins to be compatible * https://github.com/pulp/pulp-oci-images/blob/latest/pulp/Containerfile#L14-L22 * 3.11.2 in-progress * Loggin

[Pulp-dev] Feedback for pulp3 demo next week

I've prepared some content for my talk next Thursday, May 20. The content is here [0], please edit/add to it change it. I think it's easier than explaining change to me and then me making them. I'll proof the content later and fixup anything that doesn't make sense. Here are some things I would pa

[Pulp-dev] pulpcore team meeting notes - May 11, 2021

## Topics * Hold https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8386 for 3.14 * could potentially break plugins (pulp_rpm) that want 3.13 * Possible scheme to "backport idempotent data migrations" * We cannot backport migrations, but we could wrap the migrating code into a post_migrate action on the backport

Re: [Pulp-dev] How to enable HTTPS for our tests in pulpcore and all plugins?

t;>> >>>> I changed https://github.com/pulp/pulp-oci-images/pull/73 to ship both, >>>> latest as is, and the new tag: https >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Fabricio Aguiar >>>> Software Engineer, Pulp Project >>>&g

Re: [Pulp-dev] How to enable HTTPS for our tests in pulpcore and all plugins?

Brazil - Latam <https://www.redhat.com/> > +55 22 999000595 > > > > On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 11:41 AM Brian Bouterse > wrote: > >> +1 to this observation, we probably need to either ship both or make it >> configurable somehow. Shipping both is probably easier on users. >

Re: [Pulp-dev] How to enable HTTPS for our tests in pulpcore and all plugins?

redhat.com/> >>>>> +55 22 999000595 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 10:55 AM Fabricio Aguiar >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Our nginx conf only supports http no

Re: [Pulp-dev] Tasking System Changes and Feedback

>>>> * We'd just be adding a small amount of information to each task >>>> record, and it wouldn't prevent cleanup later. >>>> >>> >>> This is sort of an aside to this general change. Are Pulp tasks cleaned >>> up from the data

Re: [Pulp-dev] Tracking issues for plugin_template

I imagined for downstream Bugzilla for example, we would have the downstream BZ link to the upstream using the tracker ggainey mentioned. Then for the github issues we would have a 'Bugzilla' label, and the link would be in the comments. I expect the scripts would ensure these were present like the

[Pulp-dev] Tasking System Changes and Feedback

FYI, @mdellweg and I have been collaborating on the tasking system changes. This email is to share some info to transition the work to @mdellweg while I'm out. With the new-style disabled by default I am hoping it can go into 3.13. ## The PoC and ticket info The PoC is basically functional, but i

[Pulp-dev] FYI: New logger for deprecation warnings

tl;dr use the logger @daviddavis made https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/1225/files See this issue for the backstory: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8499 ___ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] Benchmarking Tasking System Results

Ahead of the tasking system changes @mdellweg and I are collaborating on, we wanted to benchmark the current tasking system throughput which I've measured as a maximum 2.6 tasks / sec. Check out the test plan, results, and analysis here: https://hackmd.io/DV633ocwTnShsI8LdajshA We'll be using thi

Re: [Pulp-dev] CI/CD meeting minutes

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 10:50 AM Matthias Dellweg wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 4:42 PM Brian Bouterse > wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 10:34 AM Fabricio Aguiar >> wrote: >> >>> ## March 31, 2021 >>> >>&g

Re: [Pulp-dev] CI/CD meeting minutes

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 10:34 AM Fabricio Aguiar wrote: > ## March 31, 2021 > > * Github Actions > * good overall > * faster and more reliable so far than Travis > * easier to debug with tmate action > * downsides > * virtualization > * not possible to re-r

Re: [Pulp-dev] Removing pulp-smash from PyPI

I'm +1 to this plan and the removal of pulp-smash from PyPI. On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 11:26 AM David Davis wrote: > Yes, that's the plan. Sorry I didn't mention that in my email. > > David > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 11:23 AM Mike DePaulo > wrote: > >> It's declared in many plugins' test depen

Re: [Pulp-dev] [Pulp-list] PulpCon 2021

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:12 AM David Davis wrote: > The topic of PulpCon came up today as spring is usually the time we begin > to plan PulpCon. The main question I think is whether we should hold > PulpCon again virtually this year or not. > > Optimally, we'd like to meet in person but given t

Re: [Pulp-dev] Run pulpcore-manager check --deploy

I certainly share your interest in this matter. Thank you for bringing this up. I have some questions, and I also want to share some complicating aspects that I'm not entirely so sure what to do about as of yet. ## Questions What did you imagine going in SILENCED_SYSTEM_CHECKS in pulpore.git? ##

Re: [Pulp-dev] Removing MD5 and SHA-1 as default available checksums in 3.11

tting, and to have the pulp_deb code work with the checksums it has available and error when it cannot fulfill their request due to not having the checksums it would need to do so. > > regards, > Quirin > -- > *From:* pulp-dev-boun...@redhat.com on > b

[Pulp-dev] Pulpcore team meeting notes

# March 9, 2021 ## Previous AIs * [mdellweg] look for any docs issues that we might need for 3.11 * don't have time to complete for 3.11, so we skip and will revisit for 3.12 * [dalley] get more info about what happens remote gets deleted to revisit next week * deleting a remote, then recr

Re: [Pulp-dev] https://fixtures.pulpproject.org/ downtime

Thank you! On Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 5:47 AM David Davis wrote: > The site has been updated and should be working now. > > On Tuesday, February 23, 2021, David Davis wrote: > >> We're switching over to openshift for fixtures.pulpproject.org on >> Thursday February 25 at 10:00 UTC (5am ET). It may t

Re: [Pulp-dev] CI status board

Thank you! On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 12:44 PM Matthias Dellweg wrote: > We have put up a collection of CI status badges across (hopefully soon) > all our projects. > > https://github.com/pulp/pulp-ci/blob/master/README.md > > Please take a look regularly, because especially the nightlies are > sup

[Pulp-dev] Removing MD5 and SHA-1 as default available checksums in 3.11

tl;dr With pulpcore 3.11, the plan is to remove MD5 and SHA-1 from the list of default available checksums. RPM and Migration plugin users will need to add this back in at 3.11 upgrade time for your systems to continue working. Please give on-list feedback on this change. ## Background Pulp has

[Pulp-dev] How to enable HTTPS for our tests in pulpcore and all plugins?

I believe all of our plugins (and CI) require HTTP and do not work with HTTPS. I'm not well versed in what needs to be done to fix this, but I think we should fix it. Can the CI group have a 30 min call to talk over what needs to be done? Or maybe share some info here? The main issue I'm aware of

[Pulp-dev] FYI: Use get_model() in migrations. Maybe audit your plugin too?

We ran into an issue (I originally created ) where migrations were importing a Model like: from my_plugin.apps.models import MyModel Instead Django wants us to use `apps.get_model('app_name', 'MyModel')` which reconstructs a historical model from the DB. I open

[Pulp-dev] Feature Proposal: Virus Scanning Downloaded Content

A user brought up this story/need in the dev channel, and they expressed a goal to contribute it. Through discussion with the pulpcore team, @x9c4 and I are going to try to guide the contribution. Anyone is welcome to help, but it gives the contributor a clear person(s) to ask questions to. Here's

Re: [Pulp-dev] Backports and LTS

Stakeholder's won't agree on a single "LTS" (agreed daniel that's not a great name for it) so I think option 3 is a non-starter. Option 2 is what we do today and I agree it has the issues already mentioned. So +1 to option 1, but as already mentioned, practically speaking, I believe we can't relea

[Pulp-dev] Upcoming pulpcore==3.10 plugin requirement

Starting with pulpcore==3.10 plugins will need to have the `versions` attribute on the PulpPluginAppConfig subclass. If you want to release a plugin that is forward compatible with both pulpcore 3.9 *and* 3.10 you'll need to make this change now. The 3.10 breaking change

[Pulp-dev] Tasking system improvements

Recently at triage we discussed tasking system improvements. I have mostly good news to share regarding the resolution of those. Through postmortem analysis of the system we identified one specific improvement and that got merged today. See the issue description for full details on the failure sce

[Pulp-dev] OSTree Guesstimates of a Basic Implementation

I was asked to look to write down a guess of what it would take to bootstrap a basic-functionality ostree plugin. I wrote my guesses here: https://hackmd.io/KT6AZGMBScuP7z6m9316Tg Basically 7.5 FTE weeks is my claim. Any feedback is appreciated, either here or on the document. Also it's just an es

[Pulp-dev] Feature Proposal: Alternate Content Sources

I wrote up an "Alternate Content Sources" feature proposal for Pulp3. This would be similar to the Pulp2 version. It includes background on the Pulp2 feature, use cases I've heard motivating it then (and now), and a proposed implementation. https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7832 Please send or post on

Re: [Pulp-dev] Travis pricing

On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 10:27 AM David Davis wrote: > I looked a little bit more into Gitlab CI this morning. If my > understanding is correct, their cap is 50,000 minutes. Right now, we're > using about 44,000 minutes in Travis[0]. Some of our jobs (eg > pulp_installer, pulp-cli, etc) are on GHA

Re: [Pulp-dev] Unblocking SigningService hash check PR

the > SigningService base class?), but I suppose I will just have to re-watch the > meeting. > I also get the feeling, continuing SigningService work isn't at the top of > anyone's To-Do list right now. We will see who blinks first. > -- > *From:

Re: [Pulp-dev] Raising the pulpcore requirement for plugins

Hi Quirin, Apologies for the long delay. Thank you for bringing this up. I wrote some responses inline with what I believe to be true. More questions are welcome! On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 3:51 AM Quirin Pamp wrote: > So far, I have been mindlessly raising the pulpcore requirement by one Y > vers

[Pulp-dev] 3.7.0 Release Retro Minutes

Below are the minutes that are also from this hack.md: https://hackmd.io/xHMjjpFCTQKrpQdwyH_D2g There are ideas listed under pain points about how to solve each; our goal is to get each of them into (or identify an existing) ticket as a next step. # Release Retro ## 3.7.0 Lessons Learned * Don

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 CLI PoC Feedback

I'm excited to use this. I went to try it, but the CLI's requests wouldn't trust the server which uses self-signed certificates. When running `pulp status` I get this error: requests.exceptions.SSLError: HTTPSConnectionPool(host='localhost', port=443): Max retries exceeded with url: /pulp/api/v3/d

Re: [Pulp-dev] PR merging

On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 7:35 AM Ina Panova wrote: > > > > Regards, > > Ina Panova > Senior 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 Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 2:38 PM David Davis wrote: > >>

Re: [Pulp-dev] sphinx theme for docs.pulpproject.org

On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 10:05 AM Quirin Pamp wrote: > Of course these options are not mutually exclusive. We could decide on > some theme (e.g.: pulp_ansible theme) and then have both pulpcore and all > plugins consistently use that theme. > I do quite like the sphinx_rtd_theme used by pulpcore, b

Re: [Pulp-dev] Disabling merge by commit

a specific part of the docs was changed for real via > "git blame". > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 1:11 AM David Davis wrote: > >> I agree that merging by squash is potentially unsafe. I'll disable it for >> pulpcore and pulp_file unless anyone objects. >>

Re: [Pulp-dev] CLI team meeting notes

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 3:31 PM Robin Chan wrote: > > Robin Chan > > She/Her/Hers > > Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp > > Red Hat > > IRC: rchan > > Red Hat respects your work life balance. Therefore there is no need to > answer this email out of your office

Re: [Pulp-dev] Disabling merge by commit

I'm in favor of only the rebase & merge option everywhere. Our commit association machinery relies on commits not being modified, so I don't think the "squash and rebase" is a safe option for us. I am glad we are no longer using merge commits also. On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 11:39 AM Tatiana Tereshch

Re: [Pulp-dev] 3.7.0 Release Timeline & Go/No-Go Chat Meeting

3.7.0 is published but not announced. > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 11:11 PM Brian Bouterse > wrote: > >> A lot of progress was made today, the final 3.7.0 and several plugin >> compatibility releases should go out tomorrow. >> >> * 3.6.4 pulpcore and its installer are

Re: [Pulp-dev] 3.7.0 Release Timeline & Go/No-Go Chat Meeting

galaxy_ng upgrading to the latest pulpcore, pulp_ansible, and pulp_container. pulp_rpm I also think is likely On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 12:29 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > Through IRC discussion here's what we learned: > > * it's generally agreed plugins should not switch their pulpco

[Pulp-dev] pulpcore 3.6.4 is Generally Available

pulpcore 3.6.4 is available on PyPI[0]. This release fixes bindings issues caused by a dependency that released backwards incompatible changes[1]. # Installation and Upgrade Users should use the 3.6.4 release of pulp_installer[2] to install or upgrade their installations. This version of the inst

Re: [Pulp-dev] 3.7.0 Release Timeline & Go/No-Go Chat Meeting

ler is released * Once the installer and pulpcore bits are available (both 3.7.0 and 3.6.4) announcements will go to pulp-list On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 7:15 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > 3.7.0 is technically released, but the pulp_file PR is failing due to a > variety of reasons. I'll

Re: [Pulp-dev] 3.7.0 Release Timeline & Go/No-Go Chat Meeting

3.7.0 is technically released, but the pulp_file PR is failing due to a variety of reasons. I'll continue on it (and the pulp_ansible release PR also failing) tomorrow. I still need to release the installer, and then proceed with the announcements. On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 1:13 PM Brian Bou

Re: [Pulp-dev] 3.7.0 Release Timeline & Go/No-Go Chat Meeting

15, 2020 at 12:51 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > At the go/no-go check in today, we determined the 3.7.0 is on-track for > the Sept 22nd release date. > > The next check-in meeting on #pulp-meeting is set up for Friday Sept 18th, > 12pm - 12:30pm EDT. https://everytimezone.com/?t=5f63f

Re: [Pulp-dev] Unblocking SigningService hash check PR

[0]). I can help review and guide that contribution if someone is interested. [0]: https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/659#issuecomment-693658607 On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 4:48 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > Sorry for the long delay in reply. Thank you for the email. I also want to > unbloc

Re: [Pulp-dev] 3.7.0 Release Timeline & Go/No-Go Chat Meeting

e who participated in our release check in today! On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 3:20 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > Per the new process, here's the tracker (with checklist) for 3.7.0's > release: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7463 Right now, the GA date is > slated for Sept 22nd. > > T

[Pulp-dev] Katello/pulp 3 integration scrum notes

Note, next week's meeting is cancelled due to Pulpcon conflict. This was discussed with Katello on today's call. September 9, 2020 Pulp - Pulpcore - Dalley - Working on tasking bugs (stuck tasks, etc.) and slow orphan cleanup - Have been on the sprint for

[Pulp-dev] Pulpcore team meeting

## September 8, 2020 ### Previous action items * [dkliban] file a story to allow auto-publish and distribute * Done. https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7469 * [bmbouter] to respond and close https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/659 * not done, moved forward to next week ### Topics * 3.7.0 is s

Re: [Pulp-dev] New black version

FYI, this was merged at the pulpcore weekly meeting today. On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 1:22 PM David Davis wrote: > A new version of black was released which has fixed some of our docstring > and made a change to how trailing commas are handled. I've fixed a few of > the plugins (pulp_file, pulp_ans

[Pulp-dev] Recommended: Remove test `test_file_decriptors`

At the open floor today, there was support for removing this one particular test from all plugins. I've removed it from these places, but other plugins should consider removing it also. pulpcore: was not used plugin_template: https://github.com/pulp/plugin_template/pull/260 pulp_file: https://g

[Pulp-dev] 3.7.0 Release Timeline & Go/No-Go Chat Meeting

Per the new process, here's the tracker (with checklist) for 3.7.0's release: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7463 Right now, the GA date is slated for Sept 22nd. The first go/no-go meeting will happen in #pulp-meeting at the time below: Tuesday Sept 15th, 12pm - 12:30pm EDT. https://everytimezone.c

Re: [Pulp-dev] github checklist as a part of the release process

This is great, thank you. On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 7:31 AM David Davis wrote: > I've added a release template checklist to the pulpcore project. I am > hoping we can test it out with the next release of pulpcore. > > David > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 10:11 AM David Davis > wrote: > >> On Fri,

Re: [Pulp-dev] problem: version locking plugins to pulpcore

ciation warnings before actually >> removing the code or introduce any backward incompatible change. >> >> Tanya >> >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:09 AM Matthias Dellweg >> wrote: >> >>> This sounds pretty much the same as i had in mind. Thank you for w

[Pulp-dev] problem: version locking plugins to pulpcore

Here's a problem statement(s) and some brainstorming ideas about what could be done to resolve them. This was discussed today at open floor some also. # Problem Pulp plugins version lock to the GA version of pulpcore and don't allow compatibility with other pulpcore releases. This causes at least

Re: [Pulp-dev] When to declare Pulp safe for multi-user?

2020 at 12:34 PM Ina Panova wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Ina Panova >> Senior 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.&quo

[Pulp-dev] pulpcore 3.7 tentative release date -- Sept 22nd

This was discussed at open floor today. ___ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] Proposal: Basic Functional Test Requirement with each Feature or Bugfix

I have two goals with this: 1. Improve the stability of pulpcore and it's plugins 2. Enable all downstreams and packagers with tests and information on how to run those tests, so they can run the automated tests even as the downstream is curated with a series of backports. This closely follows th

Re: [Pulp-dev] Squeezer compatibility release

This is great, thank you. Do you want to advertise this to pulp-list also? On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 10:52 AM Matthias Dellweg wrote: > Hey folks, > Following the release of pulpcore 3.6 that had breaking changes around > the api documentation (used by those ansible modules) we have just > releas

[Pulp-dev] When to declare Pulp safe for multi-user?

Pulpcore 3.6 adds RBAC machinery for plugins to enable RBAC with [0], but that hasn't happened broadly in plugins or pulpcore yet, so Pulp 3.6 is still not multi-user safe. I want us to discuss options and strategy for when can we declare Pulp multi-user safe. My take is that, I think we should av

Re: [Pulp-dev] Documentation issues

+1 I'd like to see this happen and participate On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 2:00 PM David Davis wrote: > I haven't heard any objections. What if we pick August 13 to focus on > docs? There are 9 docs issues on the sprint so if we all pick up one issue, > then we get the sprint down to 26 NEW issues. >

Re: [Pulp-dev] RBAC Status Thread

BAC anyway. So my next step in this area is to add this to the docs only. Plugin writers will *not* need to add permissions for prior existing objects. On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 5:59 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > Alright we're close to the end of pulpcore's RBAC additions for 3.6, bu

Re: [Pulp-dev] RBAC Status Thread

n it until then. User docs are still needed, I'm working on those tomorrow Please do review, I want to merge on Friday to be included in 3.6. On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 4:58 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > A lot of plugin writer docs about adding RBAC support have been added to > the newly

Re: [Pulp-dev] RBAC Status Thread

https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7231 https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7232 Feedback and other concerns are welcome. On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 4:58 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > I've gotten various feedback and I want to relay some of the changes based > on that. > > 1) Pulp should ship a &quo

[Pulp-dev] Allowing Older Z-stream Backports and Releases?

Currently my understanding of the z-stream policy is that Pulp only has one active z-stream. This means (for example) that when 3.6.0 comes out, there will never be another z-stream release for 3.5.z, 3.4.z, 3.3.z, etc. I believe we have an opportunity to create more value by adjusting this to all

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp3 Concurrency testing

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 12:17 PM David Davis wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 12:03 PM Justin Sherrill > wrote: > >> >> On 7/28/20 11:44 AM, David Davis wrote: >> >> Today we discussed this at triage. We're leaning towards changing the >> default from 20 to 10 as it seems like 10 only incurs an

Re: [Pulp-dev] RBAC Status Thread

elow) https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/compare/master...bmbouter:rbac-PoC On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 2:20 PM David Davis wrote: > On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 4:54 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > >> My next goal is to have object-level permissions assigned through signals >> so that

Re: [Pulp-dev] Name uniqueness problem in Pulp 3 REST API

names in a certain content-type, you > are definitely breaking the ansible usecase. > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 5:56 PM Grant Gainey wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 11:38 AM Dennis Kliban > wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 11:22 AM

Re: [Pulp-dev] Name uniqueness problem in Pulp 3 REST API

I'm concerned if we don't make a change, here's the user experience I'm worried about. 1. User A creates repo 'rhel7' 2. user B can't see repo 'rhel7' because of queryset scoping 3. user B goes to create 'rhel7' 4. user B is told 'rhel7' already exists Users should be able to use simple names. I

Re: [Pulp-dev] AccessPolicy Model Advice ... input needed

wrote: > >> Pulp 2 users would definitely be familiar with describing policies in >> terms of urls. The Pulp 3 REST API already uses the pulp_href field as the >> primary identifier. You should implement idea 1. >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 5:45 PM Brian Bouterse

Re: [Pulp-dev] AccessPolicy Model Advice ... input needed

ibing policies in > terms of urls. The Pulp 3 REST API already uses the pulp_href field as the > primary identifier. You should implement idea 1. > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 5:45 PM Brian Bouterse > wrote: > >> > >> I need some design input. To store AccessP

[Pulp-dev] AccessPolicy Model Advice ... input needed

I need some design input. To store AccessPolicy data in the DB I think we want one Model where each instance is the access policy for a given viewset. I think this would be better than one Model per Viewset which would generate N tables for N viewsets with 1 instance of each which would be very str

Re: [Pulp-dev] Cherry pick processor

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 1:34 PM David Davis wrote: > As creator of the cherry pick processor, I'd like to propose we ditch it. > It requires a lot of upkeep which doesn't really save us time over just > doing the cherry picks ourselves. Also, it often fails because it cannot > make intelligent de

Re: [Pulp-dev] RBAC Status Thread

on I have to think about this last part more... Meanwhile I plan to go forward with the user-controllable policies next. Input and feedback is welcome. Cheers, Brian On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 4:53 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > My next goal is to have object-level permissions assigned through s

Re: [Pulp-dev] RBAC Status Thread

ck is welcome. Also I've collaborated with @alikins from galaxy_ng project and together we wrote this requirements doc for their plugin: https://hackmd.io/JisLkfyeT2myAD2khEwU0A On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 6:43 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > The demo advertisement for tomorrow is here: > https:

Re: [Pulp-dev] RBAC: PoC Available and Review/Discussion Meeting Setup

on, Jun 29, 2020 at 8:12 AM Brian Bouterse wrote: > The Role Based Access Control (RBAC) Proof of Concept (PoC) is ready for > review and feedback. Below are links to pulpcore and pulp_file parts, along > with a bonus ldap integration PR too. > > * The pulpcore code right now

Re: [Pulp-dev] RBAC Status Thread

nsolved problems with some possible solutions. Cheers, Brian On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 5:08 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > Today I accomplished a few more things: > > * finished my ldap notes: https://hackmd.io/ED9UpscNSRW86Le3xNzVeg > * moving the checks from a mixin to be "global

Re: [Pulp-dev] RBAC Status Thread

The demo advertisement for tomorrow is here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/2020-June/msg00076.html On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 6:41 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > Another productive RBAC day! See the latest code at the links below. > Here's what's new: > > * policy is

Re: [Pulp-dev] RBAC Status Thread

to the model itself via signals so it's automatic everywhere (including in tasks) 2. Preserve the user and group "request context" into the tasking system. I can see a straightforward path to how to do this so I plan to prototype this soon also. Feedback is welcome! On Fri, Jun 26

Re: [Pulp-dev] Unblocking SigningService hash check PR

Sorry for the long delay in reply. Thank you for the email. I also want to unblock that PR. I put some replies in line. On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 7:03 AM Quirin Pamp wrote: > Hi, > > > However we decide to continue with the SigningService topic in the medium > and longrun, I wanted to have one mor

[Pulp-dev] RBAC: PoC Available and Review/Discussion Meeting Setup

The Role Based Access Control (RBAC) Proof of Concept (PoC) is ready for review and feedback. Below are links to pulpcore and pulp_file parts, along with a bonus ldap integration PR too. * The pulpcore code right now is minimal, only enabling django-guardian as a dependency and enabling django adm

[Pulp-dev] CI failing due to docs.pulpproject.org out of space

Pulpcore nightly CI is failing [0] with "rsync: write failed on "/var/www/ docs.pulpproject.org/en/master/nightly/.buildinfo": No space left on device (28)". I contacted the support folks about it, so action has been taken. [0]: https://travis-ci.com/github/pulp/pulpcore/jobs/354834259#L1672 Chee

Re: [Pulp-dev] RBAC Status Thread

low policy writers to call either model-level or file-level checks also. I'll work on ^ next. Ideas and feedback are welcome. I pushed no new code today because it's a mess and not runnable at my stopping point. On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 6:18 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > Here's

Re: [Pulp-dev] RBAC Status Thread

expect the PoC to be done by tomorrow and write-up by Monday, so I'm going to schedule the public review meeting for next week towards the end of the week. On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 5:49 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > Moar progress! Today the following things got done: Today's changes a

Re: [Pulp-dev] RBAC Status Thread

nd organize the PoC into a clear, organized format Questions and feedback are welcome! On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 5:54 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > Lots of progress today! I have a mostly-complete policy for RBAC for > FileRemote. It's surprising how little code all of this ended up b

Re: [Pulp-dev] RBAC Status Thread

n builds permissions off of it so it should also define it. This is easy. Feedback is welcome. I'm going to continue building this and then schedule a public review of FileRemote, Content modification for file repos, and sync restriction next week. On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 5:14 PM Brian Bouterse

Re: [Pulp-dev] RBAC Status Thread

ories and Sync next. 2. Write it up and share it. 3. Schedule public meeting to review it (targeting next-week) On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 5:09 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > I got the LDAP users both authenticating and importing into Pulp! Next > I'll do the groups and then I think the lda

Re: [Pulp-dev] RBAC Status Thread

es, why it makes them, and we can determine if these are the right choices together. On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 4:57 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > I got a lot further on this today. I have the test ldap setup with several > test users and groups. I have django-auth-ldap configured mostly > auth

Re: [Pulp-dev] RBAC Status Thread

the groups should follow easily. Once that's done I'll be unblocked to finish the RBAC PoC. The rest of the parts are straightforward given the testing I've already done. More updates to come. On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 5:03 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > I got the ldap refere

Re: [Pulp-dev] Website: moving "Related Tooling" to a sub menu

+1 On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:01 AM Melanie Corr wrote: > Hi all, > > I was wondering if there would be any objections to moving the Related > Tooling page under the Pulp 3 drop-down menu? > > At the moment the Pulp 3 menu contains a page comparing Pulp 2 v Pulp 3, a > page dedicated to Pulp 3 F

Re: [Pulp-dev] RBAC Status Thread

led Bin Li asking for info on how their user and group management works. On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 11:48 AM Adrian Likins wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 8:23 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > >> >> 1) django admin (the built in django UI) will be the mechanism >> administr

Re: [Pulp-dev] Signing Service Meeting Schedule on #pulp-meeting

Should the checksum also be added to the model? Please share ideas, feedback, and concerns. [0]: https://hackmd.io/k5xm4WZ7QpeX0HF80XS9OQ [1]: https://youtu.be/uecwUFJTWno On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 11:06 AM Brian Bouterse wrote: > Here's the link where we're meeting: https://meet.google.

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >