(In reply to Zibi Braniecki [:zbraniecki][:gandalf] from comment #43) > Axel stated that we don't want to expose "just brand-name". That's not how I read comment #40 ; I read that terms cannot be fetched by the API, which just seemed like a statement on a technical limitation that was there because of the intents around the use of terms in general. It'd be trivial to use (only) the brand name in a non-term string and fetch that, right? And I don't think of brand names as just any terms (in fact, given we can reference non-brand terms, I wonder what the point is of them being terms at all...), and there are definitely already places in the codebase where the brand name gets used in isolation. Either way, I didn't read that as objecting to the approach. Perhaps Axel can clarify if it was indeed an objection to my suggestion, and if so, why?
Bug 1602808 Comment 44 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
(In reply to Zibi Braniecki [:zbraniecki][:gandalf] from comment #43) > Axel stated that we don't want to expose "just brand-name". That's not how I read comment #40 ; I read that terms cannot be fetched by the API, which just seemed like a statement on a technical limitation that was there because of the intents around the use of terms in general. It'd be trivial to use (only) the brand name in a non-term string and fetch that, right? And I don't think of brand names as just any terms (in fact, given we can reference non-term identifiers, I wonder what the point is of brand names being terms at all...), and there are definitely already places in the codebase where the brand name gets used in isolation. Either way, I didn't read that as objecting to the approach. Perhaps Axel can clarify if it was indeed an objection to my suggestion, and if so, why?