Payload validation #534
Payload validation #534
Conversation
mdellweg
force-pushed
the
components
branch
3 times, most recently
from
497aba0
to
e8fd71e
Compare
| @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ def openapi_group() -> None: | |||
|
|
|||
| @openapi_group.command() | |||
| @pass_pulp_context | |||
| def schema(pulp_ctx: PulpContext) -> None: | |||
| def spec(pulp_ctx: PulpContext) -> None: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am wondering if we should move the whole "openapi" command group one level up (from pulp debug openapi to pulp openapi).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hrm, I don't have a strong opinion either way. I think I lean ever so slightly to "leave it under the 'debug' top level, because that's what we're doing"
| @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ def openapi_group() -> None: | |||
|
|
|||
| @openapi_group.command() | |||
| @pass_pulp_context | |||
| def schema(pulp_ctx: PulpContext) -> None: | |||
| def spec(pulp_ctx: PulpContext) -> None: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hrm, I don't have a strong opinion either way. I think I lean ever so slightly to "leave it under the 'debug' top level, because that's what we're doing"
pulpcore/cli/common/debug.py
Outdated
| result = pulp_ctx.api.api_spec["components"]["schemas"][schema_name] | ||
| except KeyError: | ||
| raise click.ClickException( | ||
| _("No schem component with name {schema_name} found.").format(schema_name=schema_name) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| _("No schem component with name {schema_name} found.").format(schema_name=schema_name) | |
| _("No schema component with name {schema_name} found.").format(schema_name=schema_name) |
| repository_ctx.pulp_href | ||
| for repository_ctx in repository | ||
| if isinstance(repository_ctx, PulpEntityContext) | ||
| ] + list(repository_href) | ||
|
|
||
| exporter_ctx.update(exporter_href, the_exporter) | ||
| exporter_ctx.update(exporter_href, payload) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a reason for this change to be linked to the openapi-validation?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Glad that you ask! Yes. the_exporter is the answer of a GET request and it contains fields like pulp_created, pulp_href and so on. Those are not meant to be in the set of parameters of a PATCH call. And out new linting alerts on it.
No description provided.