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

Re: [Pulp-list] update semantics



On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 09:31 -0600, Jeff Ortel wrote:
> All,
> 
> I've pushed the 2nd round of changes that complete the "update semantics" story.  This 
> work included the decoupling of the DB crud operations from the APIs.  The API classes 
> have been changed to use the mongo collection.  Also, the BaseApi insert(), update(), 
> delete() methods have been commented out to ensure two things.  First, API classes most 
> provided meaningful implementations for the CRUD of system entities.  Second, it forces 
> the afore mentioned DB decoupling.  Although, BaseApi.clean() remains and I think we 
> should consider leaving delete() as they rarely need to be specialized.
> 
> For those API classes that did not implement an update() method, I added one.  I 
> determined which keywords (fields) to support in the 'delta' using the following criteria: 
> 1) looking in the model and assuming what was reasonable; 2) only considered fields that 
> were *not* covered by specific update-like method in the API such as RepoApi.add_package().
> 
> Here's the basic update() impl pattern:
> 
> def update(id, delta):
> 
>    1. Get rid of the ID in the 'delta'.  Eg: delta.pop('id', None)
>    2. Fetch the object.
>    3. Iterate the 'delta' content in as CASE style loop.
> 
>           for key,value in delta.items():
>               if key in ('a','b',...):  <----- SIMPLE UPDATES FIRST
>                   object[key] = value
>                   continue
>               if key == 'foobar':       <------ SPECIAL UPDATES (repeat)
>                   <special logic>
>                   object[key] = <something>
>                   continue
>               # default                 <------ UNSUPPORTED
>               raise Exception, 'not supported'
> 
>    4. Save the updated object using the mongo collection
>    5. Return the updated object.
> 
> There are as many 'SPECIAL UPDATES' blocks as needed.  So, when adding a supported field 
> to an update() method, please add another 'if key; continue' block.
> 
> After converting each API class, I updated the callers in the expected places:
>    * The WS controllers
>    * The other APIs
>    * The unit tests
>    * The CLI classes to just pass delta
>    * The client.api classes update() signatures
> 
> In some cases, I changed the call to Api.update() to match the signature.  In other cases, 
> the changed the call to use one of the specific update methods on the API such as 
> RepoApi.add_package() rather then updating the packages list on the repo and calling 
> update().  It's more appropriate anyway.
> 
> The nosetests are clean and I've sanity tested using the CLI.  But, I can't test 
> everything.  I would really appreciate everyone taking a good look at the Api.update() 
> methods and making sure I got the fields correct.  Also, take some time to double check 
> the WS controllers as they are not tested by the unit tests.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jeff

This is excellent. I'll poke at the web services today as I'm in there
already writing documentation.

-- 
Jason L Connor
linear on freenode #pulp
http://pulpproject.org/
RHCE: 805010912355231
GPG Fingerprint: 2048R/CC4ED7C1

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


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