Actions
Task #6475
closed
Write docs about Pulp users using DRF browseable API and not django-admin
Status:
CLOSED - WONTFIX
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
-
Category:
-
Sprint/Milestone:
-
Start date:
Due date:
% Done:
0%
Estimated time:
Platform Release:
Groomed:
No
Sprint Candidate:
No
Tags:
Documentation
Sprint:
Quarter:
Description
Pulp docs are deficient in two ways, and they are related because of the similar value they create for users.
-
We don't have docs that recommend the DRF browseable API. It's a well kept secret! Let's document it.
-
We don't have docs that explain why django-admin is discouraged from being used. To recap the reasons
- pulp is highly aligned with DRF, e.g. data validation, and django-admin side-steps all this
- Pulp data is highly relational so making a complete django-admin interface is non-trivial. For example you can create a repo version, but populating it with data would be almost impossible.
- the read-functionality is redundant with the DRF browseable API
- any gap in APIs that prevent users from creating the objects they need should be addressed as RFEs against the Pulp API itself
Updated by bmbouter over 2 years ago
- Status changed from NEW to CLOSED - WONTFIX
Actually we are enabling django-admin just with read-only models. We need an easy way for users to manage object-level permissions and Django admin provides that.
Actions
.