Bug #4386: List node API : typo on "machyneType" (should be "machineType") - Rudder - Issue Tracker

Actions

Copy link

Bug #4386

closed

List node API : typo on "machyneType" (should be "machineType")

Added by Nicolas CHARLES over 10 years ago. Updated about 10 years ago.

Status:

Released

Priority:

Assignee:

François ARMAND

Category:

API

Target version:

2.10.0~beta1

Pull Request:

https://github.com/Normation/rudder/p...

Severity:

UX impact:

User visibility:

Effort required:

Priority:

Name check:

Fix check:

Regression:

Description

A request on the list of node returns:

{"action":"listAcceptedNodes","result":"success","data":{"nodes":[{"id":"41affc17-e432-420c-8f64-b819e96c67fc","status":"accepted","hostname":"sles-11","osName":"Suse","osVersion":"11","machyneType":"Virtual"}

The machyneType is not that great :/

On which version should we correct it ? People may rely on this text already

Related issues 1 (0 open — 1 closed)

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Jonathan CLARKE over 10 years ago

Subject changed from Typo dans list node API : machyneType to List node API : typo on "machyneType" (should be "machineType")
Status changed from New to 8
Assignee set to Vincent MEMBRÉ

This is terribly unfortunate.

We will have to create a new version of the API. It is unthinkable to change a key without incrementing the version.

Vincent, please fix this ASAP.

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ about 10 years ago

Status changed from 8 to Pending technical review
Assignee changed from Vincent MEMBRÉ to François ARMAND
Pull Request set to https://github.com/Normation/rudder/pull/465

PR here: https://github.com/Normation/rudder/pull/465

Actions

Copy link

Updated by François ARMAND about 10 years ago

There is no target version for that, should it go in 2.10 only ?

Actions

Copy link

Updated by François ARMAND about 10 years ago

Assignee changed from François ARMAND to Jonathan CLARKE

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Jonathan CLARKE about 10 years ago

Target version set to 2.10.0~beta1

François ARMAND wrote:

There is no target version for that, should it go in 2.10 only ?

Yes, I see no reason to impact released branches for a silly typo. It could so easily break existing scripts using "latest" version, it's not worth the risk.

Actions

Copy link