-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 418
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[RFC] Stage 1 for volume device #2229
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In the markdown of the proposal doc, there are comments outlining the additional detail to capture for each stage. Can those sections be filled out for Stage 1?
rfcs/text/0040-volume-device.md
Outdated
@@ -106,6 +106,7 @@ The following are the people that consulted on the contents of this RFC. | |||
|
|||
* @Trinity2019 | author | |||
* @ricardoelastic | reviewer |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should either @ricardoelastic or @stanek-michal be added as reviewers?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes. I'll ask them in slack as well
@@ -29,13 +29,8 @@ This RFC propose adding the volume device fieldset to describe volume storage de | |||
* volume.vendor_name | |||
* volume.serial_number | |||
* volume.volume_device_type | |||
* volume.action |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I removed action because I plan to use event.action
for logging the information
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
@ebeahan can we get this PR merged? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Adding a few more observations as comments after another read through.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
] | ||
}, | ||
"message": "Endpoint volume device event", | ||
"volume.bus_type": "FileBackedVirtual", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No need to fix for this round, but in a future stage let's correct the example to use an object vs. the dot notation for clarity.
"volume.bus_type": "FileBackedVirtual", | |
"volume": { | |
"bus_type": "FileBackedVirtual", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @ebeahan for the suggestions:) will fix in the next round.
make test
? - N/Amake
and committed those changes? - N/A