> As the person who -2'd the review, I'm thankful you raised this issue on > the ML, Jay. Much appreciated.
The "metadetails" term isn't being invented in this patch, of course. I originally complained about the difference when this was being added: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/109505/1/nova/api/openstack/compute/contrib/server_groups.py,cm As best I can tell, the response in that patch set about why it's being translated is wrong (backwards). I expect that the API extension at the time called it "metadetails" and they decided to make the object the same and do the translation there. From what I can tell, the actual server_group API extension that made it into the tree never got the ability to set/change/etc the metadata/metadetails anyway, so there's no reason (AFAICT) to add it in wrongly. If we care to have this functionality, then I propose we change the attribute on the object (we can handle this with versioning) and reflect it as "metadata" in the API. However, I have to ask: do we really need another distinct metadata store attached to server_groups? If not, how about we just remove it from the database and the object, clean up the bit of residue that is still in the API extension and be done with it? --Dan
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev