Open pinkwah opened 2 years ago
This is the case where we stuff a list of records into one record with realisation index 0?
Why be backwards compatible? Current ERT use is a hack that is, to my knowledge, not in use—except in testing.
This is the case where we stuff a list of records into one record with realisation index 0?
Not really. The issue being that only realization_index=0
holds the metadata for all the realizations which already makes it erroneous since when writing any realization record (with realization_index>0
) thus expects that realization_index=0
exists. Therefore putting metadata into RecordInfo
makes perfect sense.
Why be backwards compatible? Current ERT use is a hack that is, to my knowledge, not in use—except in testing.
Agree here. I would say we don't need to be backwards compatible as the API is still being developed...
The use-case has been ambiguous, and ERT is mostly using it with
?realization_index=0
to work around the mess.I propose we move the
userdata
field fromRecord
toRecordInfo
. The API will be the same.For backward-compatibility, this endpoint should still accept
realization_index
, but if it is something other than 0 it return HTTP 422 Unprocessable Entity.