Hide Forgot
Description of problem: id.value looks redundant for users - admins configuring osinfo. why should they invent new id.value? for me this is useless. i suppose normal admin would work like this: * inherit from other definition, he would use derivedFrom.value, define the rest * (or) create completely new section so why should he mess with some id.value? should it be unique or if not, would he redefine previously defined data? this is more troubles than benefit. and if an admin would not inherit all lines, thus he would not use derivedFrom.value, it should be transparently supplemented by defaults. right now it looks fragile and not very easy to use. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): is25 How reproducible: ?? Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: fragile, problematic Expected results: remove id.value, just use derivedFrom.value to populate data for "missing" keys; it not derivedFrom found, populate from default transparently. Additional info:
it's important to keep ID unchanged as it is used for exports/imports and internally as well, and it's used as a key in REST so I don't see it going away, managing full names is not desirable for APIs…and since it's a key we can't really generate that from some order in a file. We should document that existing IDs should not be removed unless absolutely sure there's no VM anywhere using it (including exports, backups)