Post by fish on Feb 12, 2018 12:37:31 GMT
Questions related to chapter 7.8.2. “Schema variations”.
Assuming we have a service that uses the standard Redfish schemas, e.g. for ComputerSystem. Schema is not modified according to 18.104.22.168 “Schema Modification Rules”. But the Redfish service still supports only a sub-set of the properties in the ComputerSystem schema.
In this scenario I would assume that a client should only be allowed to PATCH the ComputerSystem properties that the Service actually includes in the response body at GET on the same resource. But I cant find such statement in the specification. The specification states that PATCH of resource properties that are e.g. ReadOnly in the service should be possible (but as they will not be updated the error message should be provided). But this section does not state anything about handling of resources that are not supported at all by the service, such as standard Redfish schema resources not supported by the service.
But when I read chapter 7.8.2 (bullet 1) it looks like the service shall support a PATCH of “unsupported” Standard Redfish property via Settings data / resource: “All Redfish Services must support attempts to set unsupported configuration elements in the Setting Data by marking them as exceptions in the Setting Data Apply status structure, but not failing the entire configuration operation.”
To me this looks like different handling for directly applied PATCH on “Current configuration object” and PATCH via Settings Data. Do you agree? Why is this specified to be handled differently in such case? To me the simpler solution would be that clients shall only issue PATCH on properties exposed by the service via GET.
Second bullet of same chapter 7.8.2 says “The support of a specific property in a resource is signaled by the presence of that property in the Current Configuration object. If the element is missing from Current Configuration, the client may assume the element is not supported on that resource.” How should I understand the word “may” here? I think it would be easier if this was a “shall”, according to my argumentation above. And first sentence in same bullet does not include any “shall” or “may”, which I think makes it difficult to understand the intention. Could someone please clarify?