Yep, the way we removed the validation is not good long term solution (IMO)
because we still requesting the schema for unvalidated_model and I am not
sure why do we need it.
I will create a spec about it soon so we can discuss it in more details.
Best regards,
Kairat Kushaev
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015
We've been taking validation out as issues have been reported (it was
removed from image-list recently for example).
Removing across the board probably does make sense.
Agree with you. That's why I am asking about reasoning. Perhaps, we need to
realize how to get rid of this in glanceclient.
.
- Erno
From: Kairat Kushaev [mailto:kkush...@mirantis.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 7:33 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] Models and validation for v2
Agree with you. That's why I am asking about reasoning
Agree with you. That's why I am asking about reasoning. Perhaps, we need to
realize how to get rid of this in glanceclient.
Best regards,
Kairat Kushaev
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 09/30/2015 09:31 AM, Kairat Kushaev wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>> In
Hi All,
In short terms, I am wondering why we are validating responses from server
when we are doing
image-show, image-list, member-list, metadef-namespace-show and other
read-only requests.
AFAIK, we are building warlock models when receiving responses from server
(see [0]). Each model requires
On 09/30/2015 09:31 AM, Kairat Kushaev wrote:
Hi All,
In short terms, I am wondering why we are validating responses from
server when we are doing
image-show, image-list, member-list, metadef-namespace-show and other
read-only requests.
AFAIK, we are building warlock models when receiving