@jrperritt I have a question about the design of this kind of implementation:

This implements a "List" as it returns a list of results. To conform with other lists, I used the whole pagination thing, but with a single page, given there's never going to be more than one page of results.

SinglePage works well for this type of API call, and AllPages provides a nice shortcut, but it still seems a bit too much code for what it is:

allPages, err := flavors.ListAccess(client, foo).AllPages()
allAccess, err := flavors.ExtractAccess(allPages)

I could implement it this way:

allAccess, err := flavors.ListAccess(client, foo).Extract()

But using List in this context breaks a pattern.

Am I thinking too much into this? Is it better to deal with the extra few lines in favor of conformity?

Coverage increased (+0.01%) to 71.565% when pulling f3c0da5 on jtopjian:computev2-flavor-access-list into 31ccc1a on gophercloud:master.

After mulling this over for a few days, I decided to not do the whole pagination thing. Happy to revert, though.

This is ready for review.

Coverage increased (+0.04%) to 71.59% when pulling ffbb371 on jtopjian:computev2-flavor-access-list into 2bf16b9 on gophercloud:master.

If there is no Get operation for this API, should we just make this operation the Get (but maybe named differently, e.g. GetAccessInfo)? The thing I noticed about this call that differentiates it is, to your point, it isn't really a "List" (as I see it), since it's specific to a single flavor.

Yeah, that's exactly what started the whole debate for me.

The way I see it, List is used for actions that contain more than one of something. Get is usually done to retrieve one resource. But I could just be making this more difficult than it needs to be.

Actually, nevermind. GetAccessInfo works. I'll redo.

edit: To add thought to this decision: I feel that having List closely associated with paging is a better pattern to adhere to.

Actually, I misread what you'd written originally. I thought you were saying the response will only ever be a single object (a slice of length at most 1), but maybe you were saying that a single-page response seems more like a Get operation? Looking at the OpenStack source, it looks like private flavors will return an entry for every project that can access that flavor.

If there can in fact be, say, hundreds of items coming back in the response, it does seem to me that ListAccesses would be most consistent (with an accompanying ExtractAccesses). But, to what I think is your point, a single-page operation could just as well be a seen as a Get.

but maybe you were saying that a single-page response seems more like a Get operation?

Yes, exactly.

Looking at the OpenStack source, it looks like private flavors will return an entry for every project that can access that flavor.

Yes, exactly again. To use a real-world context, $work has a series of g1.x flavors for GPU access. These flavors are given out upon request. So there is one access entry per tenant which will all be returned in this API call. It is not possible to return a single access entry.

If there can in fact be, say, hundreds of items coming back in the response, it does seem to me that ListAccesses would be most consistent (with an accompanying ExtractAccesses). But, to what I think is your point, a single-page operation could just as well be a seen as a Get.

Right, exactly. So which direction? :)

Because there is precedent in this package, I'd say ListAccesses/ExtractAccesses, and we could discuss using Get-style logic for single-page operations in future packages.

Coverage increased (+0.7%) to 72.277% when pulling b40a4aa on jtopjian:computev2-flavor-access-list into 2bf16b9 on gophercloud:master.

@jrperritt ping when you have time.

Sorry if I wasn't clear earlier: I think we should use pagination for this operation. That's what I meant by "there is precedence".

ahh - OK, no problem.

Coverage increased (+0.6%) to 72.201% when pulling 666468f on jtopjian:computev2-flavor-access-list into 2bf16b9 on gophercloud:master.

@jrperritt How's this?

Thanks for your help on this!