Hi, Duncan As Gorka said, we are trying not to impact default API behavior, just give a choice to client that it can restrict cloud admin to update quota lower than current usage.
2015-07-10 16:47 GMT+08:00 Duncan Thomas <[email protected]>: > Ah, I apologise, I missed the but where it defaults to force=true. I > withdraw the objection. > > I've no strung feelings about the change either way, in that case. > On 10 Jul 2015 10:58, "Gorka Eguileor" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 10:28:06AM +0300, Duncan Thomas wrote: >> > That is a semantic change to the api that will break anybody who has >> > tooling expecting the current behavior. Since there are perfectly >> sensible >> > uses of the current behavior, that is not a good thing. >> >> Hi Duncan, >> >> I don't think that will be the case, if it's an optional argument that >> by default preserves current behavior (force = True), then it shouldn't >> break anything for all callers that don't use that new option. >> >> And for those that want the new behavior, they can always pass force set >> to false. >> >> Cheers, >> Gorka. >> >> > On 10 Jul 2015 07:33, "hao wang" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > Cinder now doesn't check the existing resource when user lower the >> quota. >> > > It's reasonable for admin can adjust the quota limit to lower level >> than >> > > current usage. >> > > But it also bring confusion that I have received to end user, they >> saw the >> > > current usage >> > > was more than limit, but they can't create resources any more. >> > > >> > > So there have been 'bug' reported[1] and code patch[2] committed, I >> knew >> > > it may be >> > > inappropriate as 'bug fix', but just want to optimize this API of >> > > updating quota. >> > > >> > > We are proposing to add an option argument which is named 'force' in >> > > request body. >> > > Of course the default value is True that means admin can adjust the >> quota >> > > lower then >> > > current usage as same as what we did now. When the force is False, >> that >> > > will occur >> > > a Validation and return 400 Bad Request if the update value is lower >> than >> > > current usage. >> > > >> > > I wonder to know folks' opinions and suggestions about this change to >> see >> > > if this is value to merge this patch. >> > > >> > > [1]https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1304234 >> > > [2]https://review.openstack.org/#/c/197938/ >> > > >> > > Thanks~ >> > > >> > > -- >> > > >> > > Best Wishes For You! >> > > >> > > >> > > >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> > > Unsubscribe: >> [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe >> > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > >> > > >> >> > >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> > Unsubscribe: >> [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe >> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: >> [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > -- Best Wishes For You!
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
