Formal client specification. #961
Conversation
|
Current state: I wrote a starting point for v1 specification. Please see the line comments for the parts where I would need some feedback. |
|
|
||
| The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119](http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2119.html). | ||
|
|
||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
TODO: Introducing the definitions for some of the terms using further down.
| If a `filter` field is specified, | ||
| it contains one or more files that must be excluded from the installation | ||
| even if they are selected by the corresponding `file` field. | ||
| The `filter` field only affects files in the same install stanza |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The filter field also affects folders in the same install stanza, or is that somehow included in files? Wasn't obvious to me so thought I'd point it out.
|
@Ippo343 : I'm looking to close out old PRs, and I'm not exactly sure what to do with this one. If you're still looking at building a Python core then I'm happy to review and comment, although in terms of ongoing maintenance I feel that integrating this into the existing metadata spec would ensure it continues to be updated going forward. Alternatively, if you're happy to close this out, then that's one step closer to my goal of PR-box zero. :) |
| the client must exclude from the installation | ||
| all the files that match one or more of the listed regular expressions. | ||
|
|
||
| ### File overwriting |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We might want to remove this section. Issues like #1311 show that we have thought about (and generally support) a limited method for overwriting so I don't see why we would impose this restriction on others.
|
Hey Paul, I've moved on to other things, so (sadly) I don't think I will continue with the python client. This can be closed safely. Da: Paul Fenwickmailto:notifications@github.com @Ippo343 : I'm looking to close out old PRs, and I'm not exactly sure what to do with this one. If you're still looking at building a Python core then I'm happy to review and comment, although in terms of ongoing maintenance I feel that integrating this into the existing metadata spec would ensure it continues to be updated going forward. Alternatively, if you're happy to close this out, then that's one step closer to my goal of PR-box zero. :) Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: |
This is code for "being an awesome guitarist", yes? :)
Roger that! One step closer to PR-box zero! P.S. You're amazing! |
AND skydiver AND cook :P And watch out next year for the paragliding course ;) Nah, I just have a good role model to follow, that being you :) |
This pull requests aims to implement a formal specification for the behaviour of ckan clients.
See also issue #956.