If we went with django-rest-framework-filters, I'm not sure we could go with other options later. Our REST API is semantically versioned so we couldn't switch from name!=value to name__ne=value. Perhaps we could label not equal filters as a tech preview to get around this?
Also, I'm curious about how we'd upgrade to django 3.0. It looks like they haven't been merging PRs so I imagine we'd have to fork the project, add django 3.0 support ourselves, and then vendor it. Is my understanding correct? David On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:13 AM Brian Bouterse <bmbou...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:03 AM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> A few weeks ago, Katello opened an issue[0] requesting a set of "not >> equal" filters (ie filters where a field is not equal to a certain value). >> I created a pulpcore issue[0] to investigate whether pulpcore could provide >> this functionality and it seems there are a few different options. I wanted >> to ask for feedback though as this would affect the user experience and >> thus whatever option we choose would be permanent. >> >> There are three options: >> >> 1. First there is a package which adds functionality on top of >> django-rest-framework-filters[1] which dynamically provides filters for >> every field using ! (eg name!=value, state!=value). The problem is that the >> package doesn't look like it's well maintained[2] and we'd quickly run into >> problems when we try to upgrade to django 3 for example[3]. We'd probably >> have to fork the project or take over ownership somehow. >> > I default to this choice because even though it's not code that is in our > control and that can feel uncomfortable, they wrote it and it does what we > need. If it doesn't work out we can go with other options later. > > >> 2. The second solution is that we can try to import the code from >> django-rest-framework-filters that creates these dynamic filters. This >> would free us from having to support any other features >> from django-rest-framework-filters we don't want to support. >> >> 3. The third option is to create a django scope (ie "ne") that would >> allow plugin writers to manually define filters like "name__eq=value". This >> solution seems the most verbose/explicit/straightforward but also the most >> work for plugin writers. I have a couple PRs open to demonstrate this >> solution: >> >> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/pull/1559 >> https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/452 >> >> I'll try to move forward with a solution next week. Feedback before then >> would be much appreciated. >> >> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5854 >> [1] https://github.com/philipn/django-rest-framework-filters >> [2] https://github.com/philipn/django-rest-framework-filters/issues/324 >> and https://github.com/philipn/django-rest-framework-filters/issues/287 >> [3] https://github.com/philipn/django-rest-framework-filters/issues/326 >> >> David >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
