Reduction of information in response to operation postponed

[vdusek]

Required PR: pulp/pulp-smash#1137

closes #3978
https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3978

[pep8speaks]

Hello @vdusek! Thanks for submitting the PR.

• There are no PEP8 issues in the file pulpcore/pulpcore/app/response.py !

[pulpbot]

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

[daviddavis]

LGTM. You have some test failures though.

[daviddavis]

Also, we should probably update all the READMEs. Here's pulp_file for example:

https://github.com/pulp/pulp_file/blob/master/README.rst#use-the-bar-publisher-to-create-a-publication

[pulpbot]

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

[vdusek]

One of the solution is rename task field back to _href, as it's done now.

The second solution is to leave field named task and edit the tests. Specifically edit keys from '_href' to 'task' here - pulp_smash/api.py#L505 and here - pulpcore/tests/functional/api/test_tasks.py#L44. However it could seem kind of confusing from the perspective of creating tests, because key '_href' is used almost everywhere.

What do you think @daviddavis, @dkliban?

[daviddavis]

I lean towards updating the tests.

Also, ping @pulp/qe for their thoughts.

[vdusek]

Updated and opened PR on pulp-smash - pulp-smash/pull/1137.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #3631 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 0%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #3631   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   55.79%   55.79%           
=======================================
  Files          63       63           
  Lines        2690     2690           
=======================================
  Hits         1501     1501           
  Misses       1189     1189

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
pulpcore/pulpcore/app/response.py	66.66% <0%> (ø)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update aa9e27d...ea24dd9. Read the comment docs.

[vdusek]

I added to the commit message reference to the required PR from pulp-smash, according docs (thanks @dkliban). I updated and rebased both PRs, just for sure, but travis-ci still didn't pass. So please, if anyone could tell me where's the problem or what I've been doing wrong, I'll be glad. Because locally checks pass without any trouble.

======================================== short test summary info ========================================
SKIP [1] tests/functional/api/test_auth.py:57: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3248
SKIP [1] tests/functional/api/test_auth.py:48: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3248
SKIP [1] tests/functional/api/test_auth.py:108: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3248
SKIP [1] tests/functional/api/test_auth.py:94: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3248

================================ 88 passed, 4 skipped in 317.55 seconds =================================

[daviddavis]

It looks we removed the functionality that lets you require pulp-smash PRs when we moved the pulp-smash tests into the pulp repo. I think we need to merge the pulp-smash change first and then re-run this PR.

Edit: I opened an issue https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4037