Skip to content

Conversation

@Matt1360
Copy link
Contributor

@Matt1360 Matt1360 commented Nov 4, 2025

Unfortunately, with some eject/insert/blink/unblink, I'm unable to get a pulse on what the BMC will actually present in the AssociatedTask[]. I've taken a guess that it might be a []Link.

I've tested this with our nodes, on both the seemingly compliant (missing Operations) older version, and newer version of the BMC.

Fixes #469

func (ops *Operations) AssociatedTask() (string, error) {
// The operations type lacks a client to fetch a task from this link
// and further, Task is a type in the redfish package.
// return GetObjects[Task](ops.GetClient(), ops.associatedTask)
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm not sure what the right approach here should be, since it's in the common package. I didn't want to introduce an intrusive change with a larger blast radius. Let me know how you'd like this to be handled, and I can massage it into place.

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can't look too closely at the moment, but will try to get to it very soon.

We may want/need to move the Task definition to common too so we can just return the task. If Operation is used by both redfish and swordfish, then it would make sense to make it a common object. We could have a redfish.Task that just wraps the common.Task so we don't break anyone.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

drive: operations/associated task

2 participants