Great, thank you for all the feedback! I posted a recap onto the issue here
so we can get it ready for grooming: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3541
Please send concerns or other thoughts/ideas.
Thanks!
Brian
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 2:22 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 5:52 PM Brian Bouterse wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 5:23 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko
> 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
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 5:23 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko
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
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.
The solution [0] also implies that I think:
Raises:
django.core.exceptions.ValidationError:
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:55 PM David Davis 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
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
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 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
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
