>> As much as the Tuskar Chassis model is lacking compared to the Tuskar >> Rack model, the opposite problem exists for each project's model of >> Node. In Tuskar, the Node model is pretty bare and useless, whereas >> Ironic's Node model is much richer. Thanks for looking that deeply into it :) >> So, it's not as simple as it may initially seem :) > > Ah, I should have been clearer in my statement - my understanding is that > we're scrapping concepts like Rack entirely. That was my understanding as well. The existing Tuskar domain model was largely placeholder/proof of concept and didn't necessarily reflect exactly what was desired/expected. > Mainn > >> Best, >> -jay >> >> [1] >> https://github.com/openstack/ironic/blob/master/ironic/db/sqlalchemy/models.py >> [2] >> https://github.com/openstack/ironic/blob/master/ironic/db/sqlalchemy/models.py#L83 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >