Refs #37989 - Pluralize api docs endpoint and other changes #11223
Conversation
sjha4
force-pushed
the
flatpak_api_updates
branch
from
1a12cbf to
e6ec736
Compare
sjha4
force-pushed
the
flatpak_api_updates
branch
4 times, most recently
from
b4a0d8c to
7f8e55c
Compare
sjha4
force-pushed
the
flatpak_api_updates
branch
from
7f8e55c to
5e0e19a
Compare
| def show | ||
| respond :resource => @flatpak_remote | ||
| end | ||
|
|
||
| api :POST, "/flatpak_remote", N_("Create a flatpak remote") | ||
| api :POST, "/flatpak_remotes", N_("Create a flatpak remote") | ||
| param :name, String, :desc => N_("name"), :required => true | ||
| param :url, String, :desc => N_("url"), :required => true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In reviewing the hammer side, I realized the "url" description is still a little confusing. The RHEL 9 docs mention enabling the RHEL flatpak repo using the URL https://flatpaks.redhat.io/rhel.flatpakrepo, but I wonder if using the flatpakrepo file in our case would work. I've just been using https://flatpaks.redhat.io/rhel, but I'm not sure how a user would find that out.
I suppose these repos will be documented and we'll seed them into Katello at some point, but that might not work for other repos out in the wild.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ack..The flatpak index path is a little obscure unless it's a custom index users have on their end and know all the details. That's where the idea to auto-create the redhat and fedora came. If we do not auto-create them, we'll add some help text to list the 2 remote URLs or documentation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it be worth updating the URL description to be something like "flatpak index URL"? It looks like the code will accept a path to an index or will append the index suffix otherwise.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Updated to: Base URL of the flatpak registry index, ex: https://flatpaks.redhat.io/rhel/ , https://registry.fedoraproject.org/.
sjha4
force-pushed
the
flatpak_api_updates
branch
from
5e0e19a to
411ccd6
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we add the organization_id param for the flatpak-remote update after the recent org-scoping changes?
api :PUT, "/flatpak_remotes/:id", N_("Update a flatpak remote")
param_group :flatpak_remote
param :id, :number, :desc => N_("Flatpak remote numeric identifier"), :required => true
param :name, String, :desc => N_("name")
param :url, String, :desc => N_("url")
param :organization_id, :number, :desc => N_("organization identifier"), :required => true
|
@vsedmik I fixed that on the hammer side. The API will get the required params from hammer after hammer name resolution magic. |
sjha4
force-pushed
the
flatpak_api_updates
branch
from
411ccd6 to
0ecac80
Compare
sjha4
force-pushed
the
flatpak_api_updates
branch
from
0ecac80 to
8990d7c
Compare
|
Rebased..Will merge when tests go green.. |
What are the changes introduced in this pull request?
Pluralize a couple of API endpoint docs so hammer and apidocs can correctly point to them.
Add label to remote index rabl
Considerations taken when implementing this change?
What are the testing steps for this pull request?
Go to the remote index and show endpoints and check if you see label field.
Check if the apidocs point correctly to the create/scan endpoints.