ProvidersController and available_providers

Matt Wagner matt.wagner at redhat.com
Thu Jan 17 22:43:47 UTC 2013


Hi fellow developers,

I just sent a pull request[1] removing the "available_providers" filter we
had in the load_providers_types[2] method. I wanted to send this email
in case I was overlooking a reason why this code was actually necessary,
since I don't totally understand its role.

It always seemed odd and/or broken to me. I guess the idea was that we
could support all providers possible upstream, but that the product
shipped might want to remove some untested providers or whatnot. That
seems like a reasonable concern, but:

a.) The line is unchanged between upstream master and 1.1, so we're not
 actually _doing_ this in product.
b.) The logic doesn't belong in the middle of a controller.

If we ever find the need to add this functionality, I would propose that
it should be a named scope on the model or something along those lines.

This pull request isn't academic, though -- this filter was getting in
my way when I corrected 'Openstack' to 'OpenStack'. There are ways
around it (checking for both spellings in the controller, or creating
the most pedantic migration ever), but I think the best course of action
is to remove this code, not to add more code to work around it.

But again, I'm sending this out because I'm not entirely sure I
understand the code. I'm not really sending this out to collect +1's or
to start a discussion on what the best way to implement this (unused)
code would be; just to let anyone object if I'm overlooking a reason
that this code can't just be deleted.

-- Matt

[1] https://github.com/aeolusproject/conductor/pull/352
[2] That method name looks like a typo. Shouldn't it be
"load_provider_types"?


More information about the aeolus-devel mailing list