On 02/10/2014 10:50 AM, Paulo Vital wrote:
Define get and POST action update API for software update resource.
Signed-off-by: Paulo Vital <pvital@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Ramon Medeiros <ramonn@linux.vnet.ibm.com> --- docs/API.md | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
diff --git a/docs/API.md b/docs/API.md index 580728c..d45298e 100644 --- a/docs/API.md +++ b/docs/API.md @@ -741,3 +741,24 @@ Contains the host sample data. * size: The total size of the partition, in bytes * mountpoint: If the partition is mounted, represents the mountpoint. Otherwise blank. + +### Resource: Host Package Update + +**URI:** /host/packageupdate + +Contains the information and action of package/software update in the host. + +**Methods:** + +* **GET**: Retrieves a list of all packages to be updated in the host. + * packages to be updated in the format: + * package: The name of the package to be updated + * arch: The architecture of the package + * version: The new version of the package + * repository: The repository name from where package will be downloaded + I applied this patch set and tried this API. The returned data format seems a little different from this API declaration: { "python-polib": { "repo": "updates", "version": "1.0.3-2.fc18", "arch": "noarch", "package_name": "python-polib" }, "libibverbs": { "repo": "updates", "version": "1.1.7-3.fc18", "arch": "x86_64", "package_name": "libibverbs" } }
please make them consistent. And IMO, "architecture" is not necessary because only appliable updates will be listed here, right? My suggestion on the JSON format is: [{ "package": "python-polib", "repo": "updates", "currentVersion": "1.0.2-1.fc18", "latestVersion": "1.0.3-2.fc18" }, { "package": "libibverbs", "repo": "updates", "currentVersion": "1.1.6-1.fc18", "latestVersion": "1.1.7-3.fc18" }]
+* **POST**: *See Software Update Actions* + +**Actions (POST):** + +* update: Start the update of packages in background