I know we don’t support things like accepting hrefs as references to resources but if I remember correctly we do return hrefs alongside ids in responses in Pulp 2. Is that not correct?
David On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 4:17 PM Dennis Kliban <dkli...@redhat.com> wrote: > I don't think we support both hrefs and ids in Pulp 2. The Pulp 2 REST API > does not accept HREFs as references to resources. In Pulp 2's REST API we > do not even have resources that have relationships to other resources. The > relationships between resources are established by nesting them under one > another. e.g.: /pulp/api/v2/repositories/<repo_id>/ and > /pulp/api/v2/repositories/<repo_id>/importers/<importer_id>/. In Pulp 2, > if a user wanted to reference content units in a request, the API requires > writing a filter that uses Mongodb syntax. > > Pulp 3's REST API has a resources called Task that has a > 'created_resource' attribute. This resource is a reference to either a > repository version or a publication at this time. Pulp 3's REST API also > supports users specifying references to content units that should be added > or removed from a repository. These needs do not exist in Pulp 2's REST > API. > > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 3:55 PM, David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> Correct me if I’m wrong but Pulp 2 supported @bizhang’s model of >> providing both hrefs and ids. Was that a source of problems or complaints >> by Pulp 2 users? >> >> David >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 3:08 PM Dennis Kliban <dkli...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> For everyone following along, the conversation has moved to Github - on >>> the PR[0] with the proposed changes. >>> >>> [0] https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3561 >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:15 AM, Bihan Zhang <bizh...@redhat.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> @dkliban I've tried out your PR and left a question: >>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3561#issuecomment-407425172 >>>> >>>> Won't it be problematic with the openapi definitions causing us to have >>>>> two schemas? Accepting the data in two forms is one thing, but using >>>>> openapi to describe it both ways is something I don't understand well. Are >>>>> we going to ship and test two? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I don't think we'll be defining the data in two different ways in >>>> openapi. We need to pass a {repository identifier} to /sync/, openapi >>>> expects a string, what we do with that string is up to us. (In the >>>> following example the format is "uri" but this isn't actually used for >>>> validation at all, since it's not defined by the swagger specification [0], >>>> we can also clear out the format field, since format is only there to >>>> support documentation needs) >>>> >>>> - RepositorySyncURL: >>>> { >>>> - required: >>>> [ >>>> - "repository" >>>> ], >>>> - type: "object", >>>> - properties: >>>> { >>>> - repository: >>>> { >>>> - title: "Repository", >>>> - description: "A URI of the repository to be >>>> synchronized.", >>>> - type: "string", >>>> - format: "uri" >>>> } >>>> } >>>> }, >>>> >>>> >>>> I can see why some users would want to refer to things in the api using >>>>> ID not an href. I think about the case that when calling publish and >>>>> referring to a RepositoryVersion with id=827561, num=3, and for >>>>> repository=1234. With an ID alternately accepted, you could call publish >>>>> and submit repo_version=827561 instead of >>>>> repo_version='repositories/1234/version/3/'. I can see that benefit, but >>>>> it >>>>> comes with downsides. Saving/storing a url I know feels a little strange, >>>>> but I do see several upsides... >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Doing it only with hrefs, ensures those benefits (nice recap btw) will >>>>> always be true. Having to submit the references using something like >>>>> 'repositories/1234/version/3/' will cause any client to store them that >>>>> way. I think that's a good thing because someone troubleshooting their >>>>> scripts or in katello's db will instead >>>>> have 'repositories/1234/version/3/', which they can directly use with >>>>> HTTP. >>>>> I think this is valuable. Otherwise they would have repo version 827561, >>>>> which now they have to do extra work to start interacting with that object >>>>> via HTTP. Storing urls removes the "templating" step from the >>>>> troubleshooter's responsibilities so we're making their job easier. >>>>> Spacewise, I don't think the clients benefit hugely from storing 827561 >>>>> instead of 'repositories/1234/version/3/', but humans do. >>>>> >>>> Why don't we provide the ability to use both href and id as >>>> identifiers, and katello can choose the route that is right for them based >>>> on the points you bring up? >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't know much about the CLI, but if we want to enable a specific >>>>> user experience, I think we can find a way to make that work. Overall I >>>>> think users should be able to specify things in the most intuitive way >>>>> possible, and I don't see how API data formats directly influence that. >>>>> For >>>>> example I think referring to a repository by it's name is the most >>>>> natural; >>>>> it's more natural than 1234 or repositories/1234. >>>>> >>>> +1 the CLI can resolve name to identifiers (either id or href), so I'm >>>> not too concerned with that. >>>> >>>> [0] >>>> https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/blob/master/versions/2.0.md#data-types >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 9:51 PM, Dennis Kliban <dkli...@redhat.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I've made a work in progress PR[0] that demonstrates the changes I was >>>>> suggesting. >>>>> >>>>> [0] https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3561 >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Having two ways to refer to objects in the API makes me nervous. I >>>>>> have some questions/concerns/ideas. I'm also interested to see what >>>>>> dkliban's bindings produce in terms of a resolution of the swagger >>>>>> issues. >>>>>> >>>>>> Won't it be problematic with the openapi definitions causing us to >>>>>> have two schemas? Accepting the data in two forms is one thing, but using >>>>>> openapi to describe it both ways is something I don't understand well. >>>>>> Are >>>>>> we going to ship and test two? >>>>>> >>>>>> I can see why some users would want to refer to things in the api >>>>>> using ID not an href. I think about the case that when calling publish >>>>>> and >>>>>> referring to a RepositoryVersion with id=827561, num=3, and for >>>>>> repository=1234. With an ID alternately accepted, you could call publish >>>>>> and submit repo_version=827561 instead of >>>>>> repo_version='repositories/1234/version/3/'. I can see that benefit, but >>>>>> it >>>>>> comes with downsides. Saving/storing a url I know feels a little strange, >>>>>> but I do see several upsides... >>>>>> >>>>>> Doing it only with hrefs, ensures those benefits (nice recap btw) >>>>>> will always be true. Having to submit the references using something like >>>>>> 'repositories/1234/version/3/' will cause any client to store them that >>>>>> way. I think that's a good thing because someone troubleshooting their >>>>>> scripts or in katello's db will instead >>>>>> have 'repositories/1234/version/3/', which they can directly use with >>>>>> HTTP. >>>>>> I think this is valuable. Otherwise they would have repo version 827561, >>>>>> which now they have to do extra work to start interacting with that >>>>>> object >>>>>> via HTTP. Storing urls removes the "templating" step from the >>>>>> troubleshooter's responsibilities so we're making their job easier. >>>>>> Spacewise, I don't think the clients benefit hugely from storing 827561 >>>>>> instead of 'repositories/1234/version/3/', but humans do. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't know much about the CLI, but if we want to enable a specific >>>>>> user experience, I think we can find a way to make that work. Overall I >>>>>> think users should be able to specify things in the most intuitive way >>>>>> possible, and I don't see how API data formats directly influence that. >>>>>> For >>>>>> example I think referring to a repository by it's name is the most >>>>>> natural; >>>>>> it's more natural than 1234 or repositories/1234. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Daniel Alley <dal...@redhat.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Keep in mind that as of yesterday, unless we revert the change, we >>>>>>> are using Integers IDs instead of UUIDs >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3549 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:57 PM, Bihan Zhang <bizh...@redhat.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Dennis Kliban <dkli...@redhat.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I was asked on IRC to state what problems the proposed changes are >>>>>>>>> trying to address. There are two problems I see with the current >>>>>>>>> OpenAPI >>>>>>>>> 2.0 schema Pulp's REST API provides. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - The path parameters in the schema don't reflect the parameters >>>>>>>>> our users should be using for identifying the resources available via >>>>>>>>> REST >>>>>>>>> API. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm not convinced that we should use hrefs as the sole identifiers >>>>>>>> for the resources. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here are the reasons I see that we use hrefs as identifiers in a >>>>>>>> REST API context: >>>>>>>> 1. Each href provides full context into the resource it >>>>>>>> identifies. When given a href you would know exactly which resource it >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> referencing and would never run into the issue of: what is this {uuid} >>>>>>>> because you know it is a 'repositories/{uuid}' >>>>>>>> 2. discoverability, you know exactly how to access resources >>>>>>>> from hitting the root url (and in a webui can just click) >>>>>>>> 3. You would not need to construct urls from templates >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But things are different if we look at it from a bindings/client >>>>>>>> context. The difference is mainly due to how discoverability is done: >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> the REST API context the user has little prior knowledge to what >>>>>>>> resources >>>>>>>> are available, and how to access theses resoruces. But the >>>>>>>> bindings/client >>>>>>>> are generated from the schema, which defines exactly how resources are >>>>>>>> structured, and what the context of each {uuid} is. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. Given an {uuid} the client/bindings knows exactly what >>>>>>>> resource this {uuid} refers to. With hrefs there would be redundant >>>>>>>> information pulp.repositories('repositories/{uuid}') (why do I need to >>>>>>>> specify repositories twice?) >>>>>>>> 2. Discoverability is done with the schema which contains all >>>>>>>> the information about available resources/endpoints >>>>>>>> 3. URL construction is done by the client, so the user would >>>>>>>> also never need to do any url construction themselves (unless we >>>>>>>> continue >>>>>>>> to force href only identifiers, in which case they might have to do >>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>> url construction to pass as arguments) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't think hrefs and uuid identifiers are mutually exclusive. I >>>>>>>> propose that we extend HyperlinkedRelatedFields to accept either href >>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>> uuid, and map these HyperlinkedRelatedFields to each other in the >>>>>>>> schema >>>>>>>> with openapi definition objects [0]. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [0] >>>>>>>> https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/blob/master/versions/2.0.md#responses-definitions-object >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - The path parameters don't have a description in the schema. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> +1 to updating the schema descriptions for these parameters >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do others agree with these problem statements? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:31 AM, Dennis Kliban <dkli...@redhat.com >>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I am working on improving the OpenAPI 2.0 schema for Pulp 3. I >>>>>>>>>> would like to get some input on the improvements I am proposing. The >>>>>>>>>> schema >>>>>>>>>> is used to generate our REST API documentation as well as the >>>>>>>>>> bindings with >>>>>>>>>> swagger-codegen. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The docs generated from our current schema look something like >>>>>>>>>> this: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> GET /repositories/{repository_pk}/versions/{number}/content/ >>>>>>>>>> <https://docs.pulpproject.org/en/3.0/nightly/integration-guide/rest-api/index.html#get--repositories-repository_pk-versions-number-content-> >>>>>>>>>> Parameters: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - *number* (*integer*) – >>>>>>>>>> - *repository_pk* (*string*) – >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Status Codes: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - 200 OK >>>>>>>>>> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.2.1> >>>>>>>>>> – >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Since Pulp identifies resources using their HREFs, I am proposing >>>>>>>>>> that the schema produce documentation that states: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> GET /{repository_version_href}/content/ >>>>>>>>>> Parameters: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - *repository_version_href* (string) – HREF for the >>>>>>>>>> repository version >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Status Codes: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - 200 OK >>>>>>>>>> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.2.1> >>>>>>>>>> – >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thoughts? Ideas? All feedback is welcome. Thank you! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
