Gotcha. /me shrugs
However we decide to implement this, its pretty evident that this field
will eventually be a core field, or at the very least treated like a core
field. So I can confidently say that yes, it should be renamed.
On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 11:06 AM Daniel Alley wrote:
> The serializ
>
> The serializer just needs to remove the _artifacts field and add an
> _artifact field. Here's how I did it in docker, which is a total ripoff of
> the file plugin.
>
I know it's fairly simple to do manually, I just meant to do so
automatically (unless we also need a serializer mixin like you s
The serializer just needs to remove the _artifacts field and add an
_artifact field. Here's how I did it in docker, which is a total ripoff of
the file plugin.
https://github.com/pulp/pulp_docker/pull/291/
It might be worth making a serializer mixin also? (I can almost hear jortel
cringing about
>
> Given that single-artifact Content is likely to be a very common pattern
> among plugins, maybe it would be best to add this as a mixin for pulpcore.
> If that's the future of this field, we should definitely make it _artifact.
+1 to this, I don't much like having to redefine this in every pl
We have single-artifact Content in Docker as well. I've gone ahead and
named the field _artifact.
Given that single-artifact Content is likely to be a very common pattern
among plugins, maybe it would be best to add this as a mixin for pulpcore.
If that's the future of this field, we should defini
In most plugins, Content only has a single artifact so we created a virtual
field 'artifact' that we expose to end users. In a recent change[0], we
prefixed the Content fields with underscores ('_') so we're considering
renaming the field to '_artifact' to be consistent with other plugins that
have
