Github user rhtyd commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1280#issuecomment-218959384
LGTM (just code review), based on what @anshul1886 says there should not be
backward compatibility issue though I've not verified this by performing manual
tests
Github user swill commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1280#issuecomment-218462063
@anshul1886 I think the ask is that it get extracted as a method and a test
be written for it. @pedro-martins and @alexandrelimassantana, I feel that this
might be
Github user anshul1886 commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1280#issuecomment-218381704
I don't find much value here in adding documentation as code seems to be
self explanatory. Regrading backward compatibility I have already answered in
my
Github user swill commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1280#issuecomment-218367282
@anshul1886 can you please review and address the comments in this PR?
Thanks...
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
Github user alexandrelimassantana commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1280#issuecomment-217842674
as @pedro-martins stated, it seems to be fitting that this method is
extracted to a class to be documented/tested. The code looks good but if the
Github user anshul1886 commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1280#issuecomment-217610090
@rhtyd @swill There will not be backward compatibility issues as with
static offering those parameters were not taken into consideration. They were
wrongly
Github user swill commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1280#issuecomment-217480884
@anshul1886 can you answer @rhtyd's question so we can get his code review
and get this moving forward. Thanks...
---
If your project is set up for it, you can
Github user rhtyd commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1280#issuecomment-216219348
@anshul1886 please rebase against latest master, can you explain if this
can cause backward compatiblity issue
tag:easypr
---
If your project is set up for
Github user swill commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1280#issuecomment-215080256
Looking for one more LGTM for this one... Thx...
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If
Github user koushik-das commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1280#issuecomment-215070344
LGTM. Verified on a simulator setup. Also the test failures from CI run are
unrelated to this change.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to
Github user bvbharatk commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1280#issuecomment-202622942
### ACS CI BVT Run
**Sumarry:**
Build Number 141
Hypervisor xenserver
NetworkType Advanced
Passed=101
Failed=5
Skipped=4
GitHub user anshul1886 opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1280
CLOUDSTACK-9199: Fixed deployVirtualMachine API does not throw an error
when cpunumber is specified for static compute offering
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9199
12 matches
Mail list logo
