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 a
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 reas
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 short terms, I am wonderi
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 respon
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 s