Update patch set 5

Patch Set 5:

(3 comments)

Patch-set: 5

6b3f2ff94df327038a6a3323db787c08c40cbfa5

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+{
+  "comments": [
+    {
+      "key": {
+        "uuid": "dfbec78f_5a9e1308",
+        "filename": "specs/train/atomic-extraroute.rst",
+        "patchSetId": 5
+      },
+      "lineNbr": 30,
+      "author": {
+        "id": 4257
+      },
+      "writtenOn": "2019-05-03T16:32:00Z",
+      "side": 1,
+      "message": "From discussion at the PTG: another problem is that routes are identified only by their data (destination/nexthop/router id); there\u0027s no way to uniquely identify the source of a route. So if two things add the same route then if one is deleted then the other will be broken (or alternatively, we could fail if two Heat stacks try to create the same route, but that\u0027s also bad and doesn\u0027t prevent other tools from doing the same).",
+      "revId": "6b3f2ff94df327038a6a3323db787c08c40cbfa5",
+      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543",
+      "unresolved": false
+    },
+    {
+      "key": {
+        "uuid": "dfbec78f_7aaf5794",
+        "filename": "specs/train/atomic-extraroute.rst",
+        "patchSetId": 5
+      },
+      "lineNbr": 58,
+      "author": {
+        "id": 4257
+      },
+      "writtenOn": "2019-05-03T16:32:00Z",
+      "side": 1,
+      "message": "Experience with SoftwareDeployments is that this leads to massive confusion where you always have to clarify whether you\u0027re talking about a series of ExtraRoute resources vs. a single ExtraRoutes resource. Something like ExtraRouteList might be better.",
+      "range": {
+        "startLine": 57,
+        "startChar": 56,
+        "endLine": 58,
+        "endChar": 6
+      },
+      "revId": "6b3f2ff94df327038a6a3323db787c08c40cbfa5",
+      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543",
+      "unresolved": false
+    },
+    {
+      "key": {
+        "uuid": "dfbec78f_fa55871e",
+        "filename": "specs/train/atomic-extraroute.rst",
+        "patchSetId": 5
+      },
+      "lineNbr": 60,
+      "author": {
+        "id": 4257
+      },
+      "writtenOn": "2019-05-03T16:32:00Z",
+      "side": 1,
+      "message": "This is probably a good idea, because it allows users to use e.g. the repeat function or just passing data from parameters to create a variable number of routes.\n\nHowever, it\u0027s very difficult for Heat to store a *list* of UUIDs as the physical ID of a resource. So if we\u0027re assigning a UUID to deal with the idempotency problem identified above, then we can really only do this if we have a single UUID for the group.\n\nIn other words, we can only do it this way if the Neutron API also supports a *group* of extra routes as the resource identified by a UUID.",
+      "revId": "6b3f2ff94df327038a6a3323db787c08c40cbfa5",
+      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543",
+      "unresolved": false
+    }
+  ]
+}