> On April 15, 2014, 7:23 a.m., daan Hoogland wrote: > > It would seem that this is a behavioral change that would break backwards > > compatibility, is it? Right now empty service names are accepted. What is > > the consequence and why change the behavior, can you shed light on the > > subject? > > > > otherwise the change seems trivial enough and is applicable.
Hi Daan, If user passes "null" string during instance creation then it's an issue since we can't search service-instance with a null string as part of Fully Qualified Name lookup on Contrail Controller. Hence user can't delete a service-instance with "null" string. Passing empty string is functionally ok but we want to avoid both "null" and "empty" string since it's not a good idea from usability/debugability point of view. Thanks & Regards, Sachin - Sachchidanand ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/19912/#review40393 ----------------------------------------------------------- On April 2, 2014, 2:14 a.m., Sachchidanand Vaidya wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/19912/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated April 2, 2014, 2:14 a.m.) > > > Review request for cloudstack. > > > Repository: cloudstack-git > > > Description > ------- > > Don't allow service instance creation with empty or null service-instance > "name" > > > Diffs > ----- > > > plugins/network-elements/juniper-contrail/src/org/apache/cloudstack/network/contrail/api/command/CreateServiceInstanceCmd.java > d2cb4de > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/19912/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Unit tested for null and empty "name" parameter. > > > Thanks, > > Sachchidanand Vaidya > >
