-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
Conversation
dceb5dd
to
2e3c07b
Compare
Does it make sense to introduce an IPAddress.type enum with value IPAssignment if that field doesn't really exist in the API? We've discussed alternative approaches elsewhere. Some of the fields that would be involved are not included in the spec today. We can also see these fields were included in packngo: https://github.com/packethost/packngo/blob/master/ip.go#L56-L130 We can see the complete result with
Based on this, expecting |
In terms of identifying that a particular JSON object is an IP reservation or a VRF IP reservation, that is already in place using the The invalid Requiring the |
2e3c07b
to
4f7057a
Compare
4f7057a
to
bf5e961
Compare
Here are the metal-cli test logs. check and approve the PR
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@Vasubabu I was going to ask if you had a chance to test with @displague's suggestion to mark assigned_to
as required
, but then I remembered that required field validation doesn't work in this SDK.
I created #159 to better track the required field issue (there was already a PR to experiment with implementing it, but having an issue for it will make it more visible). Given that issue, I'm OK with keeping the type
workaround you've implemented, but I'd like @displague to give a 👍 or 👎 before this gets merged.
I'll go ahead and merge this; it's already been tested in |
This PR is included in version 0.23.1 🎉 |
No description provided.