Open Stack

On 02/11/13 05:30, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Christopher Armstrong's message of 2013-11-01 11:34:56 -0700:
>> Vijendar and I are trying to figure out if we need to set the resource_id
>> of a resource to None when it's being deleted.
>>
>> This is done in a few resources, but not everywhere. To me it seems either
>>
>> a) redundant, since the resource is going to be deleted anyway (thus
>> deleting the row in the DB that has the resource_id column)
>> b) actively harmful to useful debuggability, since if the resource is
>> soft-deleted, you'll not be able to find out what physical resource it
>> represented before it's cleaned up.
>>
>> Is there some specific reason we should be calling resource_id_set(None) in
>> a check_delete_complete method?
>>
>
> I've often wondered why some do it, and some don't.
>
> Seems to me that it should be done not inside each resource plugin but
> in the generic resource handling code.
>
> However, I have not given this much thought. Perhaps others can provide
> insight into why it has been done that way.

There was a time in the very early days of Heat development when 
deleting something that had already disappeared usually resulted in an 
error (i.e. we mostly weren't catching NotFound exceptions). I expect 
this habit dates from that era.

I can't think of any reason we still need this, and I agree that it 
seems unhelpful for debugging.

cheers,
Zane.