Hash: SHA1

On 09/10/2014 02:26 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
>> 1) Is this tested anywhere?  There are no unit tests in the patch
>> and it's not clear to me that there would be any Tempest coverage
>> of this code path.  Providing this and having it break a couple
>> of months down the line seems worse than not providing it at all.
>> This is obviously fixable though.
> AFAIK, baremetal doesn't have any tempest-level testing at all
> anyway. However, I don't think our proxy code breaks, like, ever. I
> expect that unit tests for this stuff is plenty sufficient.

Right, but this would actually be running against Ironic, which does
have Tempest testing.  It might require some client changes to be able
to hit a Baremetal API instead of Ironic though.

>> 2) If we think maintaining compatibility for existing users is
>> that important, why aren't we proxying everything?  Is it too 
>> difficult/impossible due to the differences between Baremetal
>> and Ironic?  And if they're that different, does it still make
>> sense to allow one to look like the other?  As it stands, this
>> isn't going to let deployers use their existing tools without
>> modification anyway.
> Ideally we'd proxy everything, based on our current API
> guarantees. However, I think the compromise of just the show/index
> stuff came about because it would be extremely easy to do, provide
> some measure of continuity, and provide us a way to return
> something nicer for the create/update operations than a 500. It
> seemed like a completely fair and practical balance.

Fair enough.  I'm still not crazy about it, but since it already
exists and you say these interfaces don't require much maintenance I
guess that takes care of my major concerns.

- -Ben
Version: GnuPG v1


OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to