On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Zane Bitter <zbit...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 02/11/13 05:30, Clint Byrum wrote: > >> Excerpts from Christopher Armstrong's message of 2013-11-01 11:34:56 >> -0700: >> >>> Vijendar and I are trying to figure out if we need to set the resource_id >>> of a resource to None when it's being deleted. >>> >>> This is done in a few resources, but not everywhere. To me it seems >>> either >>> >>> a) redundant, since the resource is going to be deleted anyway (thus >>> deleting the row in the DB that has the resource_id column) >>> b) actively harmful to useful debuggability, since if the resource is >>> soft-deleted, you'll not be able to find out what physical resource it >>> represented before it's cleaned up. >>> >>> Is there some specific reason we should be calling resource_id_set(None) >>> in >>> a check_delete_complete method? >>> >>> >> I've often wondered why some do it, and some don't. >> >> Seems to me that it should be done not inside each resource plugin but >> in the generic resource handling code. >> >> However, I have not given this much thought. Perhaps others can provide >> insight into why it has been done that way. >> > > There was a time in the very early days of Heat development when deleting > something that had already disappeared usually resulted in an error (i.e. > we mostly weren't catching NotFound exceptions). I expect this habit dates > from that era. > > I can't think of any reason we still need this, and I agree that it seems > unhelpful for debugging. > > cheers, > Zane. > > Thanks Zane and others who have responded. My recent patch (now already merged) won't delete the resource_id. -- IRC: radix Christopher Armstrong Rackspace
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
