On 10/22/2012 06:28 AM, Itsuro Oda wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The result of the patch set 4 is same as the patch set 3. (see note-10
> please)
>
> Moreover I noticed that some items which did not cause error response (ie. return 200 or 201) cause error (400).
> For example:
> [null]
> o network create
> "name" : null
> o network update
> "name" : null
> o subnet create
> "name" : null
> o subnet update
> "name" : null
> o port create
> "tenant_id" : null
> "name" : null
> o port update
> "name" : null
>
> [blank]
> o subnet create
> "allocation_pools" : []
> "dns_nameservers" : ""
> "host_routes" : ""
> o subnet update
> "dns_nameservers" : ""
> "host_routes" : ""
>
> Is this intended change?
> I think null/blank is meaningless for create but may be meaningfull for update.
>
> Thanks.
>
Hi,
I hope that the latest patch addresses your concerns,.
Thanks
Gary
On 10/22/2012 06:28 AM, Itsuro Oda wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The result of the patch set 4 is same as the patch set 3. (see note-10
> please)
>
> Moreover I noticed that some items which did not cause error response (ie. return 200 or 201) cause error (400).
> For example:
> [null]
> o network create
> "name" : null
> o network update
> "name" : null
> o subnet create
> "name" : null
> o subnet update
> "name" : null
> o port create
> "tenant_id" : null
> "name" : null
> o port update
> "name" : null
>
> [blank]
> o subnet create
> "allocation_pools" : []
> "dns_nameservers" : ""
> "host_routes" : ""
> o subnet update
> "dns_nameservers" : ""
> "host_routes" : ""
>
> Is this intended change?
> I think null/blank is meaningless for create but may be meaningfull for update.
>
> Thanks.
>
Hi,
I hope that the latest patch addresses your concerns,.
Thanks
Gary