Call for creating an image from a disk

[cbastuck]

Probably the function fits better in a different scope? On the other hand the path '/global/images' matches in project scope intrinsically.

Fixes #<issue_number_goes_here> (it's a good idea to open an issue first for discussion)
It's probably quicker to start a discussion from this PR?

• [(*)] Tests and linter pass
  no new issues introduced, already on master: 6 problems (6 errors, 0 warnings)
• Code coverage does not decrease (if any source code was changed)
  no tests have yet been added
• [*] Appropriate docs were updated (if necessary)

[googlebot]

Thanks for your pull request. It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

📝 Please visit https://cla.developers.google.com/ to sign.

Once you've signed, please reply here (e.g. I signed it!) and we'll verify. Thanks.

---

• If you've already signed a CLA, it's possible we don't have your GitHub username or you're using a different email address on your commit. Check your existing CLA data and verify that your email is set on your git commits.
• If your company signed a CLA, they designated a Point of Contact who decides which employees are authorized to participate. You may need to contact the Point of Contact for your company and ask to be added to the group of authorized contributors. If you don't know who your Point of Contact is, direct the project maintainer to go/cla#troubleshoot. The email used to register you as an authorized contributor must be the email used for the Git commit.
• In order to pass this check, please resolve this problem and have the pull request author add another comment and the bot will run again. If the bot doesn't comment, it means it doesn't think anything has changed.

[cbastuck]

CLA was signed

[stephenplusplus]

Thanks for the PR. I think it should definitely be scoped where you put it (on Project), although I could see it being helpful on Disk as well. What do you think?

[cbastuck]

Thanks for the quick reply and your suggestions.

Having the call as well on Disk as well sounds good. On the other hand the disk relates to a Zone, which contradicts the 'global' concept. Thus, maybe better leave it as is, to avoid ambiguity?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #44 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100%.

@@          Coverage Diff          @@
##           master    #44   +/-   ##
=====================================
  Coverage     100%   100%           
=====================================
  Files          18     19    +1     
  Lines        1526   1583   +57     
=====================================
+ Hits         1526   1583   +57

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/index.js	100% <100%> (ø)	⬆️
src/image.js	100% <100%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update ed0abc3...a34ef9f. Read the comment docs.

[stephenplusplus]

Thus, maybe better leave it as is, to avoid ambiguity?

👍 SGTM

[cbastuck]

Looks like node4 is a bit flaky on CI for 'Compute' test case?
I did not investigate further but noticed the node failed before this patch (same timeout reported)

[stephenplusplus]

So, I made another change and moved the new method from Project to Compute. (Sorry, it's been a while since I've worked with this API, so I've been a little slow to recall our conventions).

Most of our methods create or return a custom class, such as Disk. We generally expose create{Object}, get{Object}s, and then the custom class has methods to modify it: {Object}.delete(), {Object}.setMetadata(), etc.

What we should really do is create the Image class that has methods that match the upstream API, like image.deprecate(), image.getMetadata(), image.setLabels(), etc.

I'm okay with not implementing those for the time being. However, before I merge, would you be interested in creating them? image.js file would basically be a clone of any of our other files, such as project.js. Then the accessor methods, like compute.getImages(), and compute.image() would be clones of compute.getFirewalls() and compute.firewall() for example.

Let me know what you think!

[cbastuck]

I signed it!

[cbastuck]

Creating the Image class makes totally sense. I will look into it

[stephenplusplus]

Hey @cbastuck, thanks for doing all of this! Sorry I couldn't review sooner. I think it looks good. There might be a few trivial, convention things I'll take care of. I'll try to do this within the next day or so, and we can release right after.

[cbastuck]

Hi @stephenplusplus sounds good. Do I have to do something regarding the CLA? Maybe re-authoring all commits with the email address I signed the CLA with? When signing I added my github username which links to the 'authored' address: mail@cbastuck.de. Probably this is not resolved?

[stephenplusplus]

Actually, I think everything is fine with the bot. It has a known bug where it gets confused when a PR has two authors. Since you were fine before I pushed my commit, I believe we're good. (@alexander-fenster can you confirm?)

[alexander-fenster]

Could you please add tests to improve the coverage?

[alexander-fenster]

As for the bot, everything is OK as everyone have signed the CLA and as long as all parties are OK with the changes from all parties we are good to go.

We need to confirm that all authors are ok with their commits being contributed to this project. Please have them confirm that here in the pull request.

So if all authors sign off the PR we can merge.

[cbastuck]

I will add tests

[cbastuck]

I was completely blocked be the daily work and did not find the time to increase the test coverage as promised, sorry.

[stephenplusplus]

No problem! Thanks for your work on this!