Thanks a lot for the reply. I have already registered a BP for this, and will submit a spec for N, we can discuss the details in the spec then.
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Matt Riedemann <mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > On 3/5/2016 9:48 AM, Adam Young wrote: > >> On 03/05/2016 12:27 AM, Chris Friesen wrote: >> >>> On 03/04/2016 03:42 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 3/3/2016 9:14 PM, Zhenyu Zheng wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hm, I found out the reason: >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/api/openstack/compute/servers.py#L1139-L1145 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> here we filtered out parameters like "deleted", and that's why the API >>>>> behavior is like above mentioned. >>>>> >>>>> So should we simple add "deleted" to the tuple or a microversion is >>>>> needed? >>>>> >>>> >>> Nice find. This is basically the same as the ip6 case which required >>>> microversion 2.5 [1]. So I think this is going to require a >>>> microversion in >>>> Newton to fix it (which means a blueprint and a spec since it's an >>>> API change). >>>> But it's pretty trivial, the paperwork is the majority of the work. >>>> >>>> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/179569/ >>>> >>> >>> Does it really need a spec given that microversions are documented in >>> the codebase? >>> >>> That almost seems like paperwork for the sake of following the rules >>> rather than to serve any useful purpose. >>> >>> Is anyone really going to argue about the details? >>> >>> >> I've been lurking on this discussion. I was worried that you were going >> to try to hard code "admin" somewhere in here. >> >> If the only change is that the currently accepted set of params is >> enforced with the current set of policy rules, just in a slightly >> different place, it will not break people, and thus I would think no >> microversion is essential. However, if the the user might need to test >> which way policy is enforced in order to use the right code path when >> doing a client call, then a microversion would be needed. >> >> >> >> Chris >>> >>> >>> >>> __________________________________________________________________________ >>> >>> 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 >>> >> >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> > The ip6 case and microversion 2.5 is exactly the same scenario and sets > precedent here, so yes we need a microversion which makes it an API change > which according to our policy requires a spec. I realize it's trivial, but > them's the rules. > > As far as I can tell, this is latent behavior since forever and no one has > freaked out about it before, so I don't think doing things by the book and > doing that in Newton is going to cause any problems. > > -- > > Thanks, > > Matt Riedemann > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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 >
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
