Replies: 0 comments 4 replies
-
I don't think that's the right way to go. It would be better to teach cloudapi to handle blueprints (they are converted json after all). It is better to keep the validation all on the server and the client light weight, this prevents problems with changes needing to be synchronized between multiple applications. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I have a draft PR for a client in #134, and here are a list of things that need to be fixed, written, etc. :) Right now it can build a local images, which is stored in the artifacts directory. But unless you know where to look you can't get it (ie. Some things that need to be implemented in cloudapi
Questions to answer
In order to hide the fact that there are now two apis from the user the composer-cli commands will need to query both APIs to figure out which one has the selected UUID. I think the cloudapi upload options should should be expanded to support all of the Target fields, like the weldr API uploads are, so that users can upload to their own accounts using local upload.toml files for credentials. As with blueprints I have written the upload support to just pass thru the upload.toml so that all the heavy lifting of supporting this is done in the server code. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
weldr-client
currently speaks to theweldr-api
as provided by osbuild-composer. In the longer term I'd like to move this over to thecloud-api
, also provided by osbuild-composer.Most important is how we deal with blueprints. These are currently being parsed on the
weldr-api
side of things and with this change they would need to be parsed and converted into acloud-api
type request on the client side.We would likely split out the parsing and validation of blueprints to a separate library as the service has also indicated interest in copy/pasting in a blueprint.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions