[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Pulp-dev] Importer Name





On 03/08/2018 11:13 AM, Austin Macdonald wrote:
Motivation:
The name "importer" carries some inaccurate implications. 
1) Importers should "import". Tasks like "sync" will do the actual importing. The object only holds the configuration that happens to be used by sync tasks. 
2) Sync tasks on mirror mode remove content as well as add it, so "import" isn't quite right.

Proposed name: Remote

The inspiration for remote is "git remote". In git, remotes represent external repositories, which is almost exactly what our importers do.
I'm fairly apathetic to a name change.  It would be annoying to us in katello land, but not really a huge deal either way.  I don't think importer a bad name, as it does hold configuration around 'importing'.  the fact that it itself doesn't actually do the importing is a technical detail and really isn't a big deal IMO.   User's likely wouldn't care, but for developers i guess its just weighing a more 'perfect' name to the work of changing everything (including documentation) at this stage.


-------------------------------------------------------
Part 2: Trim the fields

Currently, Importers have settings that can be categorized in 2 ways. I am proposing removing the "sync settings" from the Remote model:

External Source information
    name
    feed_url
    validate
    ssl_ca_certificate
    ssl_client_certificate
    ssl_client_key
    ssl_validation
    proxy_url
    username
    password

Sync settings
    download_policy
    sync_mode

This had some advantages when Importers were related to Repositories. For example, having a repository.importer that always used the same sync mode made sense. However, the "how" to sync settings don't make much sense when importers and repositories are not linked. It seems very reasonable that a user might have 2 repositories that sync from the same source (ex EPEL). It does not make sense for them to have create an Importer for the EPEL repository twice or more just to change sync_mode or download policy. Instead of modeling these fields, I propose that they should POST body parameters.

example
   
POST v3/remotes/1234/sync/ repositorty=myrepo_href sync_mode=additive, dl_policy=immediate
POST v3/remotes/1234/sync/ repositorty=myother_href sync_mode=mirror, dl_policy=deferred

So as a user using some future cli, i have to magically 'remember' these values?  If so, that seems like a bad user experience and kinda defeats the purpose of pulp holding configuration.  Could it be stored on the repository itself (or somewhere else) if it doesn't make sense to store on the importer/remote?  

If you're serious about this, this would be something to ask current users of pulp as it seems kind of a big deal.



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


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]