DaanHoogland commented on PR #8135: URL: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/8135#issuecomment-1832012100
> > > > @shwstppr we are having second thoughts on how this should be implemented but in the mean while this is a regression to the user as reported in #8120. I think we should test and merge and considder how to improve later. agree? cc @harikrishna-patnala @weizhouapache @rohityadavcloud > > > > > > > > > @DaanHoogland I would suggest to add all volumes info in the response, and ask users to get diskofferingid/name from volumes info, if they face the issue #8120 > > > > > > I agree adding all to the volume list, but this is a backwards compatibility issue. > > IMHO, we can give more information, rather than giving wrong info (if there are multiple volumes. ) just to keep backwards compatibility I dissagree that the offering id and offering name of the root volume are wrong information. In addition after analysing the DB and code I think it is not good to add the other information of the volumes to the VM response. There is a possibility to call `list volumes virtualmachineid=<uuid>` separately. If any bug needs solving it is that this one returns an empty offering and Id if you didn't choose one for the root volume. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
