On 04/10/2019 10:31 AM, Eric Fried wrote:
It is on my TODO list to create a story for it in placement and move the spec to the placement repo. I don't know when I will reach this item on my list, sorry.
I was getting ready to volunteer (again) to help move the ball on this because it's really important that we get this done.
But then I started thinking, is it really? The workarounds we have in the client-side code right now are pretty sucky, but they work. The effort of $subject is an optimization and suck-reducer, but is it crucial? Probably not. Though I would like to hear from Cyborg before we decide we can live without it for Train.
When I move the spec I can add the open questions from the nova spec review to the placement spec directly to help continuity. Is that OK?
WFM.
Pinging Cyborg folks. Does Cyborg needs something similar?
I know for sure this is a yes (somewhere around [6]?), but I won't be able to express the details as well as Sundar.
I can own the first alternative in the spec [3].
I'll champion the one I described in the third comment at [4], where we add a "mappings" dict next to "allocations". IMO, it's a tad cleaner because it's per "allocations" rather than per "allocations.$rp".
After considering the alternatives, this is my preference as well. Having a "mappings" key in each element of the "allocation_requests" array makes sense to me: We are providing information *about that particular allocation request's request group to provider mapping* and therefore I feel this is the best location for it to be. Best, -jay