> Would it be reasonable to return error in the case that > all explicitly included region aren't found?
Yes, this sounds reasonable. Thanks for pointing out that subtlety and for updating the RFC. From the RFC: > The command will return error status if: I assume this means ERROR or FAILURE (non-success) status. It seems a little confusing that there are both ERROR and FAILURE statuses. Maybe you could add another section, “the command will return failure status if:” to make it clear when it will be returning an error vs a failure. I think this will be important for users who are triggering the redundancy restore operation programmatically to understand the difference. > On Apr 2, 2020, at 5:18 AM, Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > >> On Apr 1, 2020, at 10:46 AM, Donal Evans <doev...@pivotal.io> wrote: >> >> There's a subtlety with the second no-op case though, since you could have >> a situation where you call the command with no arguments (include all >> regions) and don't find any partitioned regions, which would be fine > > I think in this case it is not an error since all would mean all that this > may apply to. > >> or you could have a situation where you explicitly include some regions and >> none of them are found, in which case I'm not sure that returning success >> would be correct. Would it be reasonable to return error in the case that >> all explicitly included region aren't found? > > I believe this should be the behavior. If any one explicitly listed region > does not exist an error should result. > > -Jake >
