Going by the comments in this PR [0], if something like this would be used with the API bindings, wouldn't the name__ne=value scheme be better? It also just generally seems a bit more consistent.
[0] https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/316/files On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:51 AM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
