Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add system token for PAYG systems #1206

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Conversation

jesusbv
Copy link
Collaborator

@jesusbv jesusbv commented Aug 19, 2024

Description

Add system-token to PAYG systems

How to test

Create a PAYG system, in the RMT the system token value should be the instance ID

Change Type

Please select the correct option.

  • Bug Fix (a non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New Feature (a non-breaking change which adds new functionality)
  • Documentation Update (a change which only updates documentation)

Checklist

Please check off each item if the requirement is met.

  • I have reviewed my own code and believe that it's ready for an external review.
  • I have provided comments for any hard-to-understand code.
  • I have documented the MANUAL.md file with any changes to the user experience.
  • If my changes are non-trivial, I have added a changelog entry to notify users at package/obs/rmt-server.changes.

Review

Please check out our review guidelines
and get in touch with the author to get a shared understanding of the change.

@jesusbv jesusbv requested a review from digitaltom August 19, 2024 12:28
@jesusbv jesusbv self-assigned this Aug 19, 2024
@jesusbv jesusbv requested review from rjschwei and felixsch August 19, 2024 12:47
hostname: params[:hostname],
system_information: system_information,
proxy_byos_mode: :payg,
system_token: SccProxy.get_instance_id(request.request_parameters)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I see that get_instance_id makes some assumptions that are specific to our implementation of the verification plugin and that are probably not documented. This goes hand in hand with #1207 and should first be discussed with PM as to what the behavior should be and then we should do the implementation based on business needs/agreements rather than more or less randomly implement changes where there is a good chance that we do not fully understand the implications.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

will convert both PRs into drafts until a decision has been made then

@jesusbv jesusbv marked this pull request as draft August 19, 2024 13:35
@bear454 bear454 self-requested a review August 20, 2024 18:27
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants