Re: [Pulp-dev] pulplift with source installs for developers
The current setup would have each individual configure custom boxes to suit their needs. If there was a fairly common setup for location of source code and mount options we could update the source boxes or create a set of boxes designed for mounting by default to make spinning up easier. On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 4:58 PM Dennis Kliban wrote: > Thanks Brian! This looks like exactly what we need. > > On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 4:54 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > >> pulplift itself relies heavily on "forklift" which itself has some good >> docs. Take a look at these docs and see if it generates new questions. >> >> https://github.com/theforeman/forklift#using-sshfs-to-share-folders >> https://github.com/theforeman/forklift#adding-custom-boxes >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 4:49 PM Dennis Kliban wrote: >> >>> We currently use Vagrant directly to create our development >>> environment[0]. I would like to be able to use pulplift to create a >>> development environment for Pulp 3. Our current Vagrantfile uses SSHFS to >>> mount source code on the host onto the vagrant box[1]. This allows >>> developers to make changes locally on their laptop and the same code to run >>> inside the vagrant box. >>> >>> pulplift already provides boxes named 'pulp3-source-*'. These boxes use >>> a playbook[2] from ansible-pulp3 repo to perform the installation. By >>> default, this playbook assumes that the vagrant box has pulp source code at >>> "/home/vagrant/devel/pulp". However, without the synced folders, the >>> source code is not there and the install fails. >>> >>> I would like to extend pulplift to use synced folders for the source >>> install boxes. However, I am not sure where to add such directives for >>> vagrant. >>> >>> Eric, can you point me in the right direction? >>> >>> >>> [0] https://github.com/pulp/devel/blob/master/Vagrantfile.example >>> [1] https://github.com/pulp/devel/blob/master/Vagrantfile.example#L8 >>> [2] https://github.com/pulp/ansible-pulp3/blob/master/source-install.yml >>> >>> ___ >>> 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
Re: [Pulp-dev] Renaming Content 'artifact' to '_artifact'
Gotcha. /me shrugs
However we decide to implement this, its pretty evident that this field
will eventually be a core field, or at the very least treated like a core
field. So I can confidently say that yes, it should be renamed.
On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 11:06 AM Daniel Alley wrote:
> The serializer just needs to remove the _artifacts field and add an
>> _artifact field. Here's how I did it in docker, which is a total ripoff of
>> the file plugin.
>>
>
> I know it's fairly simple to do manually, I just meant to do so
> automatically (unless we also need a serializer mixin like you said).
>
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 10:41 AM Austin Macdonald
> wrote:
>
>> The serializer just needs to remove the _artifacts field and add an
>> _artifact field. Here's how I did it in docker, which is a total ripoff of
>> the file plugin.
>>
>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_docker/pull/291/
>>
>> It might be worth making a serializer mixin also? (I can almost hear
>> jortel cringing about all these mixins)
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 10:32 AM Daniel Alley wrote:
>>
>>> Given that single-artifact Content is likely to be a very common pattern
among plugins, maybe it would be best to add this as a mixin for pulpcore.
If that's the future of this field, we should definitely make it _artifact.
>>>
>>>
>>> +1 to this, I don't much like having to redefine this in every plugin.
>>> I'm curious about how to make it work with the serializers though.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 10:13 AM Austin Macdonald
>>> wrote:
>>>
We have single-artifact Content in Docker as well. I've gone ahead and
named the field _artifact.
Given that single-artifact Content is likely to be a very common
pattern among plugins, maybe it would be best to add this as a mixin for
pulpcore. If that's the future of this field, we should definitely make it
_artifact.
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 12:24 PM David Davis
wrote:
> In most plugins, Content only has a single artifact so we created a
> virtual field 'artifact' that we expose to end users. In a recent
> change[0], we prefixed the Content fields with underscores ('_') so we're
> considering renaming the field to '_artifact' to be consistent with other
> plugins that have '_artifacts' on Content. We could use some feedback by
> sprint planning (Jan 4) either here or on the issue:
>
> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4282
>
> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4206
>
> 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
Re: [Pulp-dev] Renaming Content 'artifact' to '_artifact'
>
> The serializer just needs to remove the _artifacts field and add an
> _artifact field. Here's how I did it in docker, which is a total ripoff of
> the file plugin.
>
I know it's fairly simple to do manually, I just meant to do so
automatically (unless we also need a serializer mixin like you said).
On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 10:41 AM Austin Macdonald
wrote:
> The serializer just needs to remove the _artifacts field and add an
> _artifact field. Here's how I did it in docker, which is a total ripoff of
> the file plugin.
>
> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_docker/pull/291/
>
> It might be worth making a serializer mixin also? (I can almost hear
> jortel cringing about all these mixins)
>
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 10:32 AM Daniel Alley wrote:
>
>> Given that single-artifact Content is likely to be a very common pattern
>>> among plugins, maybe it would be best to add this as a mixin for pulpcore.
>>> If that's the future of this field, we should definitely make it _artifact.
>>
>>
>> +1 to this, I don't much like having to redefine this in every plugin.
>> I'm curious about how to make it work with the serializers though.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 10:13 AM Austin Macdonald
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We have single-artifact Content in Docker as well. I've gone ahead and
>>> named the field _artifact.
>>>
>>> Given that single-artifact Content is likely to be a very common pattern
>>> among plugins, maybe it would be best to add this as a mixin for pulpcore.
>>> If that's the future of this field, we should definitely make it _artifact.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 12:24 PM David Davis
>>> wrote:
>>>
In most plugins, Content only has a single artifact so we created a
virtual field 'artifact' that we expose to end users. In a recent
change[0], we prefixed the Content fields with underscores ('_') so we're
considering renaming the field to '_artifact' to be consistent with other
plugins that have '_artifacts' on Content. We could use some feedback by
sprint planning (Jan 4) either here or on the issue:
https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4282
[0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4206
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
Re: [Pulp-dev] Renaming Content 'artifact' to '_artifact'
The serializer just needs to remove the _artifacts field and add an
_artifact field. Here's how I did it in docker, which is a total ripoff of
the file plugin.
https://github.com/pulp/pulp_docker/pull/291/
It might be worth making a serializer mixin also? (I can almost hear jortel
cringing about all these mixins)
On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 10:32 AM Daniel Alley wrote:
> Given that single-artifact Content is likely to be a very common pattern
>> among plugins, maybe it would be best to add this as a mixin for pulpcore.
>> If that's the future of this field, we should definitely make it _artifact.
>
>
> +1 to this, I don't much like having to redefine this in every plugin.
> I'm curious about how to make it work with the serializers though.
>
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 10:13 AM Austin Macdonald
> wrote:
>
>> We have single-artifact Content in Docker as well. I've gone ahead and
>> named the field _artifact.
>>
>> Given that single-artifact Content is likely to be a very common pattern
>> among plugins, maybe it would be best to add this as a mixin for pulpcore.
>> If that's the future of this field, we should definitely make it _artifact.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 12:24 PM David Davis
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In most plugins, Content only has a single artifact so we created a
>>> virtual field 'artifact' that we expose to end users. In a recent
>>> change[0], we prefixed the Content fields with underscores ('_') so we're
>>> considering renaming the field to '_artifact' to be consistent with other
>>> plugins that have '_artifacts' on Content. We could use some feedback by
>>> sprint planning (Jan 4) either here or on the issue:
>>>
>>> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4282
>>>
>>> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4206
>>>
>>> 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
Re: [Pulp-dev] Renaming Content 'artifact' to '_artifact'
>
> Given that single-artifact Content is likely to be a very common pattern
> among plugins, maybe it would be best to add this as a mixin for pulpcore.
> If that's the future of this field, we should definitely make it _artifact.
+1 to this, I don't much like having to redefine this in every plugin. I'm
curious about how to make it work with the serializers though.
On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 10:13 AM Austin Macdonald
wrote:
> We have single-artifact Content in Docker as well. I've gone ahead and
> named the field _artifact.
>
> Given that single-artifact Content is likely to be a very common pattern
> among plugins, maybe it would be best to add this as a mixin for pulpcore.
> If that's the future of this field, we should definitely make it _artifact.
>
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 12:24 PM David Davis wrote:
>
>> In most plugins, Content only has a single artifact so we created a
>> virtual field 'artifact' that we expose to end users. In a recent
>> change[0], we prefixed the Content fields with underscores ('_') so we're
>> considering renaming the field to '_artifact' to be consistent with other
>> plugins that have '_artifacts' on Content. We could use some feedback by
>> sprint planning (Jan 4) either here or on the issue:
>>
>> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4282
>>
>> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4206
>>
>> 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
Re: [Pulp-dev] Renaming Content 'artifact' to '_artifact'
We have single-artifact Content in Docker as well. I've gone ahead and
named the field _artifact.
Given that single-artifact Content is likely to be a very common pattern
among plugins, maybe it would be best to add this as a mixin for pulpcore.
If that's the future of this field, we should definitely make it _artifact.
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 12:24 PM David Davis wrote:
> In most plugins, Content only has a single artifact so we created a
> virtual field 'artifact' that we expose to end users. In a recent
> change[0], we prefixed the Content fields with underscores ('_') so we're
> considering renaming the field to '_artifact' to be consistent with other
> plugins that have '_artifacts' on Content. We could use some feedback by
> sprint planning (Jan 4) either here or on the issue:
>
> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4282
>
> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4206
>
> 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
