Comment 1 for bug 2027688

So validate has always been the ironic internal attempt at this, except validate drifted much more towards "do we have the configuration information", since power sync should be running and flag loss of BMC communication.

The challenge is we're talking things outside of our control and even our sphere of influence on some level.

And I guess the "unresponsive bmc" is more of an edge case where the bmc still kind of sort of works, but when we request power actions, it doesn't *actually* change state. That is one of those "we need to be in the weeds to see the weeds before us sort of things.

Glance wise, we do actually check that upfront to extract metadata. Issue is we can generate a tempurl, and swift could be down.

And then networking is a whole giant ball of wax I'd prefer a discussion around.

I think there is some value to the concepts, but again, how far do we did and do we already do the right thing or not. Or is it a "pre deployment please pre-populate and pre-check" sort of action verb?

I think our biggest issue, networking wise, is the lack of working callback handling and or support for going back and checking port binding. That would help things a lot at least from a providing the user "what failed" as opposed to "it failed".