2015-06-03 14:25 GMT+02:00 John Garbutt <j...@johngarbutt.com>: > On 3 June 2015 at 12:52, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 06/03/2015 02:34 AM, Chris Friesen wrote: >>> >>> On 06/03/2015 12:16 AM, Jens Rosenboom wrote: >>> >>>> I'm wondering though whether the current API behaviour here should be >>>> changed more generally. Is there a plausible reason to silently >>>> discard options that are not allowed for non-admins? For me it would >>>> make more sense to return an error in that case. >>> >>> >>> If we're bumping the microversion anyways, I'd be in favor of having >>> that throw an error rather than silently ignore options. >>> >>> You could maybe even have a helpful "those options require admin >>> privileges" error message that gets displayed to the user. >> >> ++ > > +1 > > We must keep adding this sort of validation as we evolve v2.1 > > This is a one of the big changes in the "default behaviour" since > v2.0, validate input, and make things discoverable, rather than > silently fail.
O.k., but can we agree that this will be a second step which can be handled after the current bugfix-microversion-spec? IIUC we cannot change the behaviour for the old API anyway, so this would only affect the remaining admin-only options. __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
