fish
Guppy
Posts: 65
|
Post by fish on Mar 25, 2019 10:29:03 GMT
Hi,
I would suggest that chapter 7.5.2.1 “Schema modification rules” is updated to allow also modifications of properties “Updatable” (Capabilities.UpdateRestrictions), “Insertible” (Capabilities.InsertRestrictions) and “Deletable” (Capabilities.DeleteRestrictions). I think that this will enable Redfish services to better describe its capabilities via schema in cases when some operation and/or read-write properties are not implemented by the specific Redfish service. And I assume this is in line with original idea of these “Schema modification rules”?
|
|
|
|
Post by mraineri on Mar 26, 2019 18:47:00 GMT
I would think that reducing scope should be okay. For example, if "Capabilities.InsertRestrictions" is set to true in the published schema, you should be allowed to set it to false. However, the reverse is not true; increasing scope is not something we've allowed to do for schema modifications. We can add this clarification to the spec.
|
|
fish
Guppy
Posts: 65
|
Post by fish on Mar 27, 2019 13:29:31 GMT
OK, thanks!
|
|
fish
Guppy
Posts: 65
|
Post by fish on Oct 10, 2019 8:08:36 GMT
I would think that reducing scope should be okay. For example, if "Capabilities.InsertRestrictions" is set to true in the published schema, you should be allowed to set it to false. However, the reverse is not true; increasing scope is not something we've allowed to do for schema modifications. We can add this clarification to the spec. Hi again, One more question about schema modification (chapter 11.4 in Specification 1.8.0). I would assume that adding new URIs to the schema would also be an allowed schema modification? This would enable further reuse of standard Redfish schemas in OEM specific URIs. One example would for extended OEM usage of Redfish Certificate schema. (Usage of Certificates is currently restricted in the schema via Annotation Term="Redfish.Uris".) So I would propose that you add modification of the Annotation Term "Redfish.Uris" to the list of allowed schema modifications in chapter 11.4 also. BR /Magnus |
|
|
|
Post by mraineri on Oct 10, 2019 12:25:15 GMT
I would think that should be okay for defining OEM URIs for standard schemas. I'll raise that with the group.
|
|
fish
Guppy
Posts: 65
|
Post by fish on Oct 11, 2019 11:19:03 GMT
OK, thanks! I think I will assume this to become officially allowed later then... Looking forward to the formal decision and specification.
|
|
