+1 keeping the body as a ~dict will help with all existing asserts comparing dicts in tests.
Andrea On 30 Aug 2014 06:45, "Christopher Yeoh" <cbky...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:13:39 -0400 > David Kranz <dkr...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On 08/29/2014 10:56 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > > > On 08/29/2014 10:19 AM, David Kranz wrote: > > >> While reviewing patches for moving response checking to the > > >> clients, I noticed that there are places where client methods do > > >> not return any value. This is usually, but not always, a delete > > >> method. IMO, every rest client method should return at least the > > >> response. Some services return just the response for delete > > >> methods and others return (resp, body). Does any one object to > > >> cleaning this up by just making all client methods return resp, > > >> body? This is mostly a change to the clients. There were only a > > >> few places where a non-delete method was returning just a body > > >> that was used in test code. > > > Yair and I were discussing this yesterday. As the response > > > correctness checking is happening deeper in the code (and you are > > > seeing more and more people assigning the response object to _ ) my > > > feeling is Tempest clients should probably return a body obj that's > > > basically. > > > > > > class ResponseBody(dict): > > > def __init__(self, body={}, resp=None): > > > self.update(body) > > > self.resp = resp > > > > > > Then all the clients would have single return values, the body > > > would be the default thing you were accessing (which is usually > > > what you want), and the response object is accessible if needed to > > > examine headers. > > > > > > -Sean > > > > > Heh. I agree with that and it is along a similar line to what I > > proposed here https://review.openstack.org/#/c/106916/ but using a > > dict rather than an attribute dict. I did not propose this since it > > is such a big change. All the test code would have to be changed to > > remove the resp or _ that is now receiving the response. But I think > > we should do this before the client code is moved to tempest-lib. > > +1. this would be a nice cleanup. > > Chris > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev