MGMT-6897: Swagger support multiple networks #2339
Conversation
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
api-review
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: YuviGold The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
openshift-ci
bot
added
approved
|
/lgtm |
| description: Cluster networks that are associated with this cluster. | ||
| items: | ||
| type: object | ||
| $ref: '#/definitions/cluster_network' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What should be the logic for update? If a record exists - is it add or update? If it does not exist - is it delete?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good question.
This is used in PATCH API - meaning the user doesn't have to pass the complete entity.
@avishayt thoughts on this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The user doesn't need to pass the entire cluster resource, but the simplest way to implement this is that they pass the entire list of networks and we replace any previous entry. Let's not overcomplicate it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Updating the networks would work the same as it goes for the monitored operators.
- In case the network weren't given (nil) then its update is ignored.
- In case networks were provided - they are overriding the current
cluster networks.
|
/retest-required Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes. |
|
/lgtm cancel |
The most straight-forward solution for maintaining multiple networks is to have different tables for each one. Then, there's no need to handle BLOBs marshalling and it avoid any assumptions for order, amount, etc (Those would be validated as part of the service logic). Updating the networks would work the same as it goes for the monitored operators. - In case the network weren't given (nil) then its update is ignored. - In case networks were provided - they are overriding the current cluster networks.
YuviGold
force-pushed
the
MGMT-6897-multiple-networks
branch
from
8930ad3
to
6e55db1
Compare
|
/lgtm |
Assisted Pull Request
Description
The most straight-forward solution for maintaining multiple networks
is to have different tables for each one.
Then, there's no need to handle BLOBs marshalling and it avoid any
assumptions for order, amount, etc (Those would be validated as part of
the service logic).
Updating the networks would work the same as it goes for the monitored
operators.
cluster networks.
List all the issues related to this PR
What environments does this code impact?
How was this code tested?
Assignees
/cc @mkowalski
/cc @ori-amizur
/cc @eranco74
Checklist
docs, README, etc)Reviewers Checklist