Racks Python API and _get in base.Manager

[jistr]

This adds _get function to base.Manager and basic read actions for Racks.

If you want to do manual testing, you'll have to fire up Python REPL:

from tuskarclient.common import http
from tuskarclient.v1_0 import racks
api = http.HTTPClient('http://f18-tuskar:6385')
rm = racks.RackManager(api)

# and now you can play
rm.list()
rm.get(1) # provided that rack with id 1 exists

[mfojtik]

Couple comments here:

• Is there any reason for having 'v1_0' instead of 'v1'? Will the tuskar client follow the API versioning from Tuskar or it will has its own versioning?
• The URL concerns me a bit, I think the right approach should be to use the 'http://f18-tuskar:6385/v1' (with the 'v1'), which is more clear to me ;-)

[jistr]

Is there any reason for having 'v1_0' instead of 'v1'? Will the tuskar client follow the API versioning from Tuskar or it will has its own versioning?

This is a bug and we know about it. I started the codebase before looking at how Tuskar does versions. 😊 This should get fixed soon.

The URL concerns me a bit, I think the right approach should be to use the 'http://f18-tuskar:6385/v1' (with the 'v1'), which is more clear to me ;-)

Right. Currently the the full paths are specified in v1_0.RackManager. It's how other clients do it, but you're right it might be better to use prefix in the Client (which will be there instead of HTTPClient in a little while). We should investigate whether we can use HTTPClient and base.Manager to provide also the base URL for all Managers, besides hostname and port.

I'll create issues for both and we'll look into this separately, since Petr already started working on Resource Collections in a similar fashion and I don't want to change the foundations under his hands.

Thanks for bringing these up :)

[mfojtik]

👍 thanks for explaining me that :)

[petrblaho]

👍 and merging...

@mfojtik raised a few issues. Link to newly created issues are here:

Is there any reason for having 'v1_0' instead of 'v1'? Will the tuskar client follow the API versioning from Tuskar or it will has its own versioning?

Version naming issue #2

The URL concerns me a bit, I think the right approach should be to use the 'http://f18-tuskar:6385/v1' (with the 'v1'), which is more clear to me ;-)

Location of path prefix definition #3