Update patch set 7

Patch Set 7:

> > I was just thinking that another Alternative Implementation
 > (which
 > > would also be much simpler) would also be to use --labels along
 > > with a boolean flag, e.g. (--merge-labels) where
 > --merge-labels=False
 > > (default) would give us the current behaviour of replacing all
 > > inherited labels and --merge-labels=True would update inherited
 > > labels with labels supplied via existing --labels input. This
 > would
 > > work for auditing because we would know the policy used to arrive
 > > at the final set of labels supplied to Heat but we would need to
 > > add a boolean field to the DB and additionally, existing labels
 > > field e.g. at the cluster scope could be used to store the labels
 > > supplied by the user at this scope. Let me know your thoughts.
 > 
 > I say this because if we are implementing a behaviour where a user
 > is only allowed to supply --labels or --override-labels field, this
 > introduces a new column in the database where only one of them is
 > ever used.  This is the same as using the same column and using a
 > boolean toggle.

maybe remove your +2?

Patch-set: 7
Label: Code-Review=0
This commit is contained in:
Gerrit User 20498 2020-04-06 09:18:56 +00:00 committed by Gerrit Code Review
parent 3aa73efb67
commit 4047be1966

Diff Content Not Available