On 02/11/13 05:30, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Christopher Armstrong's message of 2013-11-01 11:34:56 -0700:
Vijendar and I are trying to figure out if we need to set the resource_id
of a resource to None when it's being deleted.
This is done in a few resources, but not everywhere. To me it seems either
a) redundant, since the resource is going to be deleted anyway (thus
deleting the row in the DB that has the resource_id column)
b) actively harmful to useful debuggability, since if the resource is
soft-deleted, you'll not be able to find out what physical resource it
represented before it's cleaned up.
Is there some specific reason we should be calling resource_id_set(None) in
a check_delete_complete method?
I've often wondered why some do it, and some don't.
Seems to me that it should be done not inside each resource plugin but
in the generic resource handling code.
However, I have not given this much thought. Perhaps others can provide
insight into why it has been done that way.
There was a time in the very early days of Heat development when
deleting something that had already disappeared usually resulted in an
error (i.e. we mostly weren't catching NotFound exceptions). I expect
this habit dates from that era.
I can't think of any reason we still need this, and I agree that it
seems unhelpful for debugging.
cheers,
Zane.
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
