Adding images via Ruby Bindings

[Bryan Kearney]

This patch exposes adding images into cobbler via the ruby bindings. It seems like the
"new", iterates over attributes, "save" model is standard across the
various elements. Any reason we can not push the save method up?

-- bk

[PATCH] Added a save method to the image

[Bryan Kearney]

---
 contrib/ruby/lib/cobbler/image.rb |   41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
 1 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/contrib/ruby/lib/cobbler/image.rb b/contrib/ruby/lib/cobbler/image.rb
index c5a84f7..c5b7367 100644
--- a/contrib/ruby/lib/cobbler/image.rb
+++ b/contrib/ruby/lib/cobbler/image.rb
@@ -26,29 +26,46 @@ module Cobbler
   #
   class Image < Base
     
+    ATTRIBUTES = [:name, :owners, :depth, :virt_file_size, 
+      :virt_path, :xml_file, :virt_bridge, :file, :parent] 
+      #These attributes seem to not exist yet. :virt_ram, :virt_cpus,
+    
     cobbler_lifecycle :find_all => 'get_images', 
       :find_one => 'get_image', 
       :remove => 'remove_image'
     
-    cobbler_field :name
-    cobbler_field :owners
-    cobbler_field :depth
-    cobbler_field :virt_file_size
-    cobbler_field :virt_path
-    cobbler_field :xml_file
-    cobbler_field :virt_bridge
-    cobbler_field :virt_ram
-    cobbler_field :file
-    cobbler_field :virt_cpus
-    cobbler_field :parent
+    ATTRIBUTES.each do |attr|
+      puts "Creating field with #{attr}"
+      cobbler_field attr
+    end
 
     def initialize(definitions)
       super(definitions)
     end
     
+    # Saves this instance.
+    #
+    def save
+      Base.begin_transaction(true)
+      
+      token = Base.login 
+      
+      raise Exception.new('Update failed prior to saving') unless
Base.make_call('update')
+      
+      imgid = Base.make_call('new_image',token)
+      
+      ATTRIBUTES.each do |attr|
+        Base.make_call('modify_image',imgid,attr.to_s, self.send(attr),token) if
self.send(attr) !=  nil
+      end
+      
+      Base.make_call('save_image',imgid,token)
+      
+      Base.end_transaction      
+    end    
+    
     private
     
-    # Creates a new instance of +System+ from a result received from Cobbler.
+    # Creates a new instance of +Image+ from a result received from Cobbler.
     #
     def self.create(attrs)
       Image.new(attrs)
-- 
1.5.5.2

[Darryl L. Pierce]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bryan Kearney wrote:
>  This patch exposes adding images into cobbler via the ruby bindings.
>   It seems like the "new", iterates over attributes, "save" model is 
>  standard across the various elements. Any reason we can not push the
>   save method up? 
The main reason for not being able to push save functionality up to
Cobbler::Base is due to the differences in field names when saving and
retrieving. For example, when retrieving a NetworkInterface, the MAC
address is delivered with "mac_address" but is called "macaddress" on
save.

If someone wants to submit a patch for it, I'm glad to accept it. :)

- --
Darryl L. Pierce <dpierce(a)redhat.com&gt; : GPG KEYID: 6C4E7F1B
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkkCDscACgkQjaT4DmxOfxuP0wCfWbvB4iR9UDeCoo3jheHzUABg
> irkAnj/0u/LlV2nYshGqclqcJVEy41hd
> =YPJb
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Bryan Kearney]

Darryl Pierce wrote:
>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>  
>  Bryan Kearney wrote:
> > This patch exposes adding images into cobbler via the ruby bindings.
> >  It seems like the "new", iterates over attributes, "save" model
> is 
> > standard across the various elements. Any reason we can not push the
> >  save method up?
>  
>  The main reason for not being able to push save functionality up to
>  Cobbler::Base is due to the differences in field names when saving and
>  retrieving. For example, when retrieving a NetworkInterface, the MAC
>  address is delivered with "mac_address" but is called "macaddress" on
> save. 

Why is that? Is it an xmlrpc feature, or a cobbler feature?

-- bk

[Darryl L. Pierce]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bryan Kearney wrote:
> >> This patch exposes adding images into cobbler via the ruby
> bindings.
> >>  It seems like the "new", iterates over attributes, "save"
> model is 
> >> standard across the various elements. Any reason we can not push the
> >>  save method up?
> > The main reason for not being able to push save functionality up to
> > Cobbler::Base is due to the differences in field names when saving and
> > retrieving. For example, when retrieving a NetworkInterface, the MAC
> > address is delivered with "mac_address" but is called
> "macaddress" on save.
>  
>  
>  Why is that? Is it an xmlrpc feature, or a cobbler feature? 
The field name discrepancy is something in Cobbler itself.

- --
Darryl L. Pierce <dpierce(a)redhat.com&gt; : GPG KEYID: 6C4E7F1B
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkkCEy0ACgkQjaT4DmxOfxvX7wCg68CEQIrAkrfNSjRgmmUIynZI
> ROcAn1YV81iIYq09vY4iE1eQR1OISp8A
> =P3sM
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Michael DeHaan]

Darryl Pierce wrote:
>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>
>  Bryan Kearney wrote:
>    
> >>> This patch exposes adding images into cobbler via the ruby bindings.
> >>>  It seems like the "new", iterates over attributes,
> "save" model is 
> >>> standard across the various elements. Any reason we can not push the
> >>>  save method up?
> >>>         
> >> The main reason for not being able to push save functionality up to
> >> Cobbler::Base is due to the differences in field names when saving and
> >> retrieving. For example, when retrieving a NetworkInterface, the MAC
> >> address is delivered with "mac_address" but is called
> "macaddress" on save.
> >>       
> > Why is that? Is it an xmlrpc feature, or a cobbler feature?
> >     
>
>  The field name discrepancy is something in Cobbler itself.
>     
It's historical, related to the early days of the webapp and is kept 
that way to not break existing code that relies on Cobbler XMLRPC.    
Patches to the core that preserve backwards compatibility while offering 
saneness would be welcome.

--Michael
>  - --
>  Darryl L. Pierce <dpierce(a)redhat.com&gt; : GPG KEYID: 6C4E7F1B
> >  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >  Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
> >  Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> >
> >  iEYEARECAAYFAkkCEy0ACgkQjaT4DmxOfxvX7wCg68CEQIrAkrfNSjRgmmUIynZI
> >  ROcAn1YV81iIYq09vY4iE1eQR1OISp8A
> >  =P3sM
> >  -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 
>    
>  _______________________________________________
>  cobbler mailing list
>  cobbler(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>  https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/cobbler
>