Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|
Forgot to include these. Once models got merged api failed.
Issue-ID: POLICY-2772
Change-Id: Iae64effcba71ecbfbf6ab253de91842a9271c207
Signed-off-by: Pamela Dragosh <pdragosh@research.att.com>
|
|
Renamed the guard policy types per this review:
https://gerrit.onap.org/r/c/policy/models/+/103127
Issue-ID: POLICY-2243
Change-Id: I35ef95756483c869d374f36d0a1dfe6b588444c7
Signed-off-by: Ram Krishna Verma <ram_krishna.verma@bell.ca>
Signed-off-by: Pamela Dragosh <pdragosh@research.att.com>
|
|
Knock on changes and some simplification of the code because the TOSCA
provider now does some of the checks that were in API, so those checks
are not needed in API any more. Various JUnit fixes.
Issue-ID: POLICY-1402
Change-Id: Ic3a08e415c8cce4f2aad4b5da2623e41280c4e66
Signed-off-by: liamfallon <liam.fallon@est.tech>
|
|
The following rules are implemented to validate the version provided
in the POST payloads of policies and policy types:
1) If version field is not specified in POST payload, "406 - Not Acceptable"
would be returned along with the message "mandantory version field is missing".
2) If the version is not in the DB, we simply insert it.
3) If the version is in the DB, "406 - Not Acceptable" is returned along with
the message saying "specified version x.x.x" is already existing and the latest
version is x.x.x. It can force the user to create a newer version than the latest one.
4) The same versioning validation is applied to legacy types of policies too
so that everything is consistent.
Issue-ID: POLICY-2316
Change-Id: I395df0196a9d3073fd1f09060f943aeeb554d277
Signed-off-by: Chenfei Gao <cgao@research.att.com>
|