On 4 June 2015 at 10:40, Jens Rosenboom <j.rosenb...@x-ion.de> wrote: > 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?
We can do this in a separate bug fix if you prefer. > IIUC we cannot change the behaviour for the old API anyway, so this > would only affect the remaining admin-only options. Stopping things silently fail, is exactly the kind of change I want to see us do more of in v2.1. I see it as a follow up on all the JSON schema validation we have added. Thanks, John __________________________________________________________________________ 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
