> 1) Is this tested anywhere? There are no unit tests in the patch and > it's not clear to me that there would be any Tempest coverage of this > code path. Providing this and having it break a couple of months down > the line seems worse than not providing it at all. This is obviously > fixable though.
AFAIK, baremetal doesn't have any tempest-level testing at all anyway. However, I don't think our proxy code breaks, like, ever. I expect that unit tests for this stuff is plenty sufficient. > 2) If we think maintaining compatibility for existing users is that > important, why aren't we proxying everything? Is it too > difficult/impossible due to the differences between Baremetal and > Ironic? And if they're that different, does it still make sense to > allow one to look like the other? As it stands, this isn't going to > let deployers use their existing tools without modification anyway. Ideally we'd proxy everything, based on our current API guarantees. However, I think the compromise of just the show/index stuff came about because it would be extremely easy to do, provide some measure of continuity, and provide us a way to return something nicer for the create/update operations than a 500. It seemed like a completely fair and practical balance. --Dan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
