On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 3:22 AM, David Kranz <dkr...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 09/04/2013 09:11 AM, Zhu Bo wrote: > >> hi, >> I'm working on bp:nova-v3-tests in tempest. The nova tests in >> tempest mostly have been ported into v3 and sent off. >> but we got some feedbacks that there was mass code duplication and >> suggested to do this by inheritance. >> So I have sent another patch to do this by inheritance. But in this way, >> another issue is not easy to drop v2 client and tests. >> I want to get more feedbacks about this blue-print to make sure we do >> this in the right way, which is the better one or is there >> another better way? I'd appreciate every suggestion and comment. >> >> the first way to do this in separate files: >> https://review.openstack.org/#**/c/39609/<https://review.openstack.org/#/c/39609/>and >> https://review.openstack.org/#**/c/39621/6<https://review.openstack.org/#/c/39621/6> >> >> the second way to do this by inheritance. >> https://review.openstack.org/#**/c/44876/<https://review.openstack.org/#/c/44876/> >> >> Thanks & Best Regards >> >> Ivan >> >> Ivan, I took a look at this. My first thought was that subclassing would > be good because it could avoid code duplication. But when I looked at the > patch I saw that although there are subclasses, most of the changes are > version "ifs" inside the base class code. IMO that gives us the worst of > both worlds and we would be better off just copying as we did with the new > image api. It is not great, but I think that is the least of evils here. > Any one else have a different view? > > I agree. The copy and modify technique for V3 is the lesser of two evils.. Chris
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev