Open coxley opened 8 years ago
Can you explain why you think this should be a hard Resource field vs. an Attribute? I'm not fully understanding, but on a related note I had considered at one point adding created
and modified
datetime fields to all Resources, which is more generic but could potentially indicate the same type of intent?
Eh?
I guess my thought was to write less code against polling every interface looking for a expiry attribute to have it done server side. Totally doable though and if not everyone has the use case probably not worth putting in.
Polling every resource, not interface
I don't think it's a bad idea, but I would like to make sure we've thought about the generic use-cases, especially if that means we want all resources to have a concept of expiration, and how that is represented both at the database level and from within the API.
In the world of automation, no looking back, moving fast and breaking things it greatly simplify extra work to have an expiry field on resources. This is a datetime field that renders a resource as either orphaned and easily reportable, hidden and ready to overwrite, or deleted - I mostly lean toward the former.
An example use case would be running a periodic job to push updates to NSoT about a resource, either from local server or EC2 or anything, that gets decommed suddenly and letting it be cleaned up nicely.