sigh. I did this on the user page since it's the model going forward. I
wish we didn't have to introduce more duplicate view code when we could so
easily avoid it.


On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:33 PM, kyolee310 <notifications@github.com> wrote:

> In eucaconsole/routes.py:
>
> > @@ -212,6 +212,7 @@ def instances_landing(self):
> >      # Groups #####
> >      Route(name='groups', pattern='/groups'),
> >      Route(name='groups_json', pattern='/groups/json'),
> > +    Route(name='groups_delete', pattern='/groups/delete'),
>
> All the other resources contain two routes for handling the delete
> operation:
>
> Route(name='scalinggroups_delete', pattern='/scalinggroups/delete'),
> Route(name='scalinggroup_delete', pattern='/scalinggroups/{id}/delete'),
> Route(name='scalinggroup_policy_delete',
> pattern='/scalinggroups/{id}/policies/delete'),
> Route(name='launchconfigs_delete', pattern='/launchconfigs/delete'),
> Route(name='launchconfig_delete', pattern='/launchconfigs/{id}/delete'),
> Route(name='volumes_delete', pattern='/volumes/delete'),
> Route(name='volume_delete', pattern='/volumes/{id}/delete'),
> Route(name='volume_snapshot_delete',
> pattern='/volumes/{id}/snapshots/{snapshot_id}/delete'),
> Route(name='snapshots_delete', pattern='/snapshots/delete'),
> Route(name='snapshot_delete', pattern='/snapshots/{id}/delete'),
> Route(name='securitygroups_delete', pattern='/securitygroups/delete'),
> Route(name='securitygroup_delete', pattern='/securitygroups/{id}/delete'),
>
> It'd be better to stick to the existing pattern for consistency, rather
> than creating an exception. If it requires refactoring, it can wait until
> 4.1 release.
>
> --
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<https://github.com/eucalyptus/eucaconsole/pull/501/files#r11144898>
> .
>