> Ok, If it doesn't break backward compatibility, which it doesn't seem to do, > I have no issue with this change.
It did. At least it required a new options parameter of the __init__ method of the plugin. I updated the branch and restored quantum_plugin_base as it was before. In the future, if we realize there's a use case for having the API layer passing options to the plugins upon initialization, we will change the interface for doing so. > b) Leave it the way it is for this change and open a bug to address that > issue. I have already filed bug #813433 for this and are working to solve all API alignment problems. By the way, I think that the viewBuilder actually reflect the OpenStack API, whereas the API spec diverges, as identifier and name of the object are usually rendered as attributes. > This seems ok, we can discuss changing to 200 separately as part of API spec > review later. Ok, agreed. > I was talking about using 404 but we can defer this to API spec review. Agreed. IMHO I think having specific error codes might help developers of client applications. > I vote that we file bugs for things we know coming out of this CL and then > we can merge the this branch, and start working on high priority API bugs. > Totally agreed. I filed two more bugs today; but the most important one is the one I filed yesterday on API alignment. -- https://code.launchpad.net/~netstack/quantum/quantum-unit-tests/+merge/68308 Your team Netstack is subscribed to branch lp:~netstack/quantum/quantum-unit-tests. -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~netstack Post to : netstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~netstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
