Open Stack

> 1) Is this tested anywhere?  There are no unit tests in the patch and
> it's not clear to me that there would be any Tempest coverage of this
> code path.  Providing this and having it break a couple of months down
> the line seems worse than not providing it at all.  This is obviously
> fixable though.

AFAIK, baremetal doesn't have any tempest-level testing at all anyway.
However, I don't think our proxy code breaks, like, ever. I expect that
unit tests for this stuff is plenty sufficient.

> 2) If we think maintaining compatibility for existing users is that
> important, why aren't we proxying everything?  Is it too
> difficult/impossible due to the differences between Baremetal and
> Ironic?  And if they're that different, does it still make sense to
> allow one to look like the other?  As it stands, this isn't going to
> let deployers use their existing tools without modification anyway.

Ideally we'd proxy everything, based on our current API guarantees.
However, I think the compromise of just the show/index stuff came about
because it would be extremely easy to do, provide some measure of
continuity, and provide us a way to return something nicer for the
create/update operations than a 500. It seemed like a completely fair
and practical balance.

--Dan

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140910/b02516f8/attachment.pgp>