----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/19912/#review40393 -----------------------------------------------------------
It would seem that this is a behavioral change that would break backwards compatibility, is it? Right now empty service names are accepted. What is the consequence and why change the behavior, can you shed light on the subject? otherwise the change seems trivial enough and is applicable. - daan Hoogland On April 2, 2014, 9:14 a.m., Sachchidanand Vaidya wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/19912/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated April 2, 2014, 9:14 a.m.) > > > Review request for cloudstack. > > > Repository: cloudstack-git > > > Description > ------- > > Don't allow service instance creation with empty or null service-instance > "name" > > > Diffs > ----- > > > plugins/network-elements/juniper-contrail/src/org/apache/cloudstack/network/contrail/api/command/CreateServiceInstanceCmd.java > d2cb4de > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/19912/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Unit tested for null and empty "name" parameter. > > > Thanks, > > Sachchidanand Vaidya > >
