Not exactly sure why, but it seems like it doesn't cross validate between SharedDomains and PrivateDomains. -- http://nima.magic.ubc.ca

Hmm...wouldn't the super call [0] validate

yes, I think the issue is with the validate method in private_domain.rb excluding shared domains prior to doing the validation, which results in the first test in the above to not fail. --

I think it is a bug. The intended functionality is that a sub domain of a shared domain can be made private. But if the domain currently exists, private or shared doesn't matter, should

Hi, I am trying to understand the expected behaviour when an already existing SharedDomain is redefined as either a shared or a private domain in CloudController. I have added the following test to

Hi Ronak, I'm still having a lot of trouble parsing your sentences. What I understand is that you're asking the following two questions: 1. You have a gateway application that you want to provide a

https://github.com/jabrena/cf-nodejs-client/blob/master/lib/model/Apps.js#L301-L340

Currently, CC returns "[ ]" for this structure: [ { fn: 'index.html', size: 1482, sha1: '59f1e65c3576dfc0bf839d1822e644644a80c2fb' }, { fn: 'manifest.yml', size: 207, sha1:

Once, the application is running, I can see the files: ``` shell cf files StaticWebsiteHelloWorld app Obteniendo archivos para app StaticWebsiteHelloWorld en org DevBox / space dev como

Juan, That is correct, you do not need to call /v2/resource_match. I am not sure what you mean by being able to upload the structure(?) but the files being empty. If you could clarify that would be

Hi Arthur, My initial idea, is the development of a Node.js client to upload application to CF. Reading your lines, I understood that It is not necessary to execute the method: /v2/resource_match ,

Ronak, check out this blog I just published: http://blog.pivotal.io/pivotal-cloud-foundry/products/app-configuration-management-with-config-servers-in-cloud-foundry I think it's close to what you

Hi, The resource is empty when nothing matching between your local file and the blobstore. Actually, you are not oblige to use resource match to send your app it's just for don't send everything if

I just went through the process of deploying diego along with v212 on Openstack and I am sorry but I need to disagree with Gwenn. The whole setup was more or less trial and error. The documentation

Anything new on the example manifests of deploying diego for specific infrastructures?

What's the command you're running to view the logs? Do you see any logs at all? If so, what messages do you see? What are you expecting to see that's now showing up? Dan wrote:

Ah, yes, when libraries are statically linked, restaging is definitely required; but I think it's a much less common use case Thanks for pushing towards more transparency around buildpack

On behalf of the entire Identity Team I'm pleased to announce the release of UAA 2.5.1 The highlights of this release include - Multi-tenancy support for SCIM groups & external group mappings

Hi Mingfei, Please check for the spiff releases at the URL Gwenn has provided. You may also try this one liner for spiff installation. mkdir spiff && cd spiff && wget

Thanks Dieu! Any thoughts on Mike's follow up for the same type of change on async polling api? http://cf-dev.70369.x6.nabble.com/cf-dev-Service-Broker-API-updating-instances-tp392p495.html Mike