Ok, I'll dig deeper into it. Our api's ACL tests are breaking against 4.2.
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Kishan Kavala <kishan.kav...@citrix.com> wrote: > Marcus, > aclid is optional when creating a networlACL. In 4.1, networkId is mandatory > for creating ACL. So, when networkId is specified instead of aclid in 4.2, CS > gets the aclList associated with the network and adds acl to it. > So, API doesn't break if the aclid is not specified. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Saturday, 9 November 2013 1:13 AM >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >> Cc: Kishan Kavala >> Subject: Re: api incompatibility between 4.1 and 4.2 in ACLs >> >> Yes, that would certainly maintain api compatibility if one creates an ACL >> without specifying aclid, it creates a new list and applies it to the given >> network. >> >> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi >> <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote: >> > Actually use this link to the message in that thread >> > http://s.apache.org/QKI >> > >> > >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com] >> >> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 11:24 AM >> >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >> >> Cc: Kishan Kavala >> >> Subject: RE: api incompatibility between 4.1 and 4.2 in ACLs >> >> >> >> >> >> I will let Kishan comment but found this thread >> >> http://markmail.org/thread/fxzki6ftqacyrylk >> >> >> >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> >> > From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com] >> >> > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 9:13 AM >> >> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >> >> > Subject: Re: api incompatibility between 4.1 and 4.2 in ACLs >> >> > >> >> > So I take the silence to simply be a collective "oops". I guess >> >> > this just should serve as a reminder to not break API compatibility >> >> > without a discussion. Perhaps our tests will surface this better in >> >> > the future (although I need to look, I wonder if any ACL tests were >> >> > also simply changed to accomodate the new behavior). >> >> > >> >> > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Marcus Sorensen >> >> > <shadow...@gmail.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> > > Maybe this has been discussed already, but we seem to have run >> >> > > into an api incompatibility. In 4.1, you could create ad-hoc ACL >> >> > > rules that applied to a network. In 4.2, you have to first create >> >> > > an 'ACL list', then add those rules to the list, then apply the >> >> > > list to a network. Or so it seems. This means that applications >> >> > > that are coded to the cloudstack API and utilize createNetworkACL >> >> > > will break, because the flow has changed. >> >> > > >> >> > > Am I correct on this? And if so, shouldn't we have deployed 4.2 >> >> > > as 5.0, since the stated versioning is based on API compatibility?
