My thoughts exactly. I meant to dig into the soft-delete code to see if those changes handled resource_id differently but I got to traveling and forgot. IMO, if it universally needs doing, then it should be done in resource.Resource and be cognizant of deletion policy. ________________________________________ From: Clint Byrum [cl...@fewbar.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 11:30 PM To: openstack-dev Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] Do we need to clean up resource_id after deletion?
Excerpts from Christopher Armstrong's message of 2013-11-01 11:34:56 -0700: > Vijendar and I are trying to figure out if we need to set the resource_id > of a resource to None when it's being deleted. > > This is done in a few resources, but not everywhere. To me it seems either > > a) redundant, since the resource is going to be deleted anyway (thus > deleting the row in the DB that has the resource_id column) > b) actively harmful to useful debuggability, since if the resource is > soft-deleted, you'll not be able to find out what physical resource it > represented before it's cleaned up. > > Is there some specific reason we should be calling resource_id_set(None) in > a check_delete_complete method? > I've often wondered why some do it, and some don't. Seems to me that it should be done not inside each resource plugin but in the generic resource handling code. However, I have not given this much thought. Perhaps others can provide insight into why it has been done that way. _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
