maas-devel team mailing list archive

[Julian Edwards <julian.edwards@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wednesday 06 Aug 2014 09:19:47 Gavin Panella wrote:
> On 5 August 2014 11:20, Graham Binns <graham.binns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I've just landed a fix for bug 1351451 (Impossible to release a BROKEN
> > node via the API). This is a problem that we (Raphers and I) saw on the
> > Orange Boxes (probably as a result of Raphinator and Gavinator-induced
> > hackery, but still).
> > 
> > A question arose in Jools's review:
> >> We probably need to talk about this with rvb.  I was under the
> >> impression that marking in-use nodes as broken should keep their owner
> >> as this is a way to know that it was being used and marked broken by a
> >> user, not an admin.  Do we need to keep that distinction?
> > 
> > Since mark_broken() already releases the node, ISTM that there's been a
> > misunderstanding somewhere. Of course, the node activity log could have
> > "Marked broken by Foo" in it to guide admins…
> > 
> > Anyway, I've landed the branch as-is, but it'd be good for us to all get
> > on the same page re: behaviour when marking broken.
> 
> There are different classes of "broken" as we modelled in the node
> lifecycle last week. One of them is the Needs Attention "state", which
> is less a status and more a flag, because the node can continue
> operations. The others were proper states, iirc. We probably want to
> change the mark_broken() and mark_fixed() calls to transition a node
> into origin-state-specific broken states, if that makes sense. Or we
> could model it all with flags. I don't know, but it's clear that
> mark_broken() and mark_fixed() were forged in a simpler age.

Right, so presumably the Needs Attention state will retain the owner details.  
This is important as the admin may wish to contact the user for further 
information.