On 04/10/2018 04:15 PM, Dennis Kliban wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com <mailto:bbout...@redhat.com>> wrote:

    These are good problem statements. I didn't understand all of the
    aspects of it, so I put some inline questions.

    My overall question is: are these related problems? To share my
    answer to this, I believe the first two problems are related and
    the third is separate. The classic divide and conquor approach we
    could use here is to confirm that the problems are unrelated and
    focus on resolving one of them first.


I don't think all 3 are related problems. The motivation for grouping all together is that a subset of the action endpoints from problem 1 are used to create repository versions and Problem 3 is a problem with the repository version creation API.


    On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 3:18 PM, Austin Macdonald
    <aus...@redhat.com <mailto:aus...@redhat.com>> wrote:

        Folks,

        Austin, Dennis, and Milan have identified the following issues
        with current Pulp3 REST API design:

          * Action endpoints are problematic.
              o Example POST@/importers/<plugin>/sync/
              o They are non-RESTful and would make client code
                tightly coupled with the server code.
              o These endpoints are inconsistent with the other parts
                of the REST API.

    Is self-consistency really a goal? I think it's a placeholder for
    consistency for REST since the "rest" of the API is RESTful. After
    reading parts of Roy Fielding's writeup of the definition of REST
    I believe "action endpoints are not RESTful" to be a true
    statement. Maybe "Action endpoints are problematic" should be
    replaced with "Action endpoints are not RESTful" perhaps and have
    the self-consistency bullet removed?


+1 to "Action endpoints are not RESTful"
+1 to removing the self-consistency language

              o DRF is not being used as intended for action endpoints
                so we have to implement extra code. (against the grain)

    I don't know much about this. Where is the extra code?

          * We don't have a convention for where plug-in-specific,
            custom repository version creation endpoints.
              o example POST@/api/v3/<where?>/docker/add/
              o needs to be discoverable through the schema

    What does discoverable via the schema ^ mean? Aren't all urls
    listed in the schema?

    I think of ^ problem somewhat differently. Yes all urls need to be
    discoverable (a REST property), but isn't it more of an issue that
    the urls which produce repo versions can't be identified
    distinctly from any other plugin-contributed url? To paraphrase
    this perspective: making a repo version is strewn about throughout
    the API in random places which is a bad user experience. Is that
    what is motivation url discovery?


Yes. I envision a CLI that can discover new plugin repository-version-creating functionality without having to install new client packages. Allowing plugin writers to add endpoints in arbitrary places for creating repository versions will make it impossible for the client to know what all the possible ways of creating a repository version are.

Currently plugins can provide one (or more) arbitrary endpoints to perform sync which is one form of creating a repository version. How is the endpoint for creating a version by adding content any different?


          * For direct repository version creation, plugins are not
            involved.
              o validation correctness problem:
                https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3541
                <https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3541>
              o example:
                POST@/api/v3/repositories/<repository_id>/versions/

    I agree with this problem statement. In terms of scope it affects
    some plugin writers but not all.


I think it affects all plugin writers. Even the File plugin needs to provide some validation when creating a repository version. Right now you can add a FileContent with the same relative path as another FileContent in the repository version. This should not be possible because it's not a valid combination of FileContent units in the same repository version.


        We would like to get feedback on these issues being sound and
        worth resolving before we resume particular solution
        discussion[1].

        Thanks,
        Austin, Dennis, and Milan

        [1]
        https://www.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/2018-March/msg00066.html
        <https://www.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/2018-March/msg00066.html>


        _______________________________________________
        Pulp-dev mailing list
        Pulp-dev@redhat.com <mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com>
        https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
        <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev>



    _______________________________________________
    Pulp-dev mailing list
    Pulp-dev@redhat.com <mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com>
    https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
    <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

Reply via email to