Just to keep things consistent, I would say either just add a new column to SecurityGroupRule or add the column to standard attribute table and migrate all of the existing data.
Between those two I would probably vote for the first for the time being while we get all of the patterns worked out for interacting with the new table. We can always migrate to a single column on the new table later. On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:41 PM, James Dempsey <jam...@catalyst.net.nz> wrote: > Hi Devs, > > I've got an open RFE[1] to allow descriptions on Security Group Rules. > It was suggested that I add a new StandardAttribute instead of modifying > the SecurityGroupRule data model to add a description. > > My questions are: > > > 1. Will a new 'description' StandardAttribute leave resources that > already have description fields with two 'description's? (e.g. > SecurityGroup) > > 2. If I want to add a 'description' StandardAttribute, do I need to try > and remove existing descriptions from data models? > > 3. Should I even be using StandardAttributes for this? It would be > simple enough to just add a description field to the SecurityGroupRule > model. > > > Thanks, > James > > > [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1483480 > > -- > James Dempsey > Senior Cloud Engineer > Catalyst IT Limited > -- > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- Kevin Benton
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
