Closed sleungcy closed 5 days ago
Since api v3 the route service binding ID was introduced. It is a breaking change but I think it would be best if the resource ID is the route service binding ID, and not the combination of route id and service instance id like it is now. It is clearer, and it allows to avoid having to fetch the id again to delete the resource, or to read it (we can just use GET)
I added a lot of comments, some I could have edited directly in your code but I did not find a way to edit directly the pull request without forking your fork and creating a PR on your fork. Do you know a better way ?
@Cocossoul let me take out the routeservice stuff from this PR
Since api v3 the route service binding ID was introduced. It is a breaking change but I think it would be best if the resource ID is the route service binding ID, and not the combination of route id and service instance id like it is now. It is clearer, and it allows to avoid having to fetch the id again to delete the resource, or to read it (we can just use GET)
Indeed. This will require implementing a stateupgrader, I'll have a look if you haven't got to it already
will be closing and recreating this
I added a lot of comments, some I could have edited directly in your code but I did not find a way to edit directly the pull request without forking your fork and creating a PR on your fork. Do you know a better way ?
Adding you as collaborator to my fork
@Cocossoul @loafoe