Code review comment for lp:~leonardr/lazr.restful/promote-write-operation-to-mutator

FTR:

<danilos> leonardr, I assume there are tests for mutators working correctly otherwise? (since your test only "proves" that it stops providing a method)
<leonardr> danilos: yes, there are. a mutator is just a write operation that doesn't show up in lookups
<leonardr> i could add a test that the mutator works in 3.0
<danilos> leonardr, right, thanks
 leonardr, if there are already tests for that elsewhere, no need to imho
 leonardr, just one more question: is it still possible to keep a method and make it a mutator? (i.e. have set_value keep working in 3.0)
<leonardr> danilos: no, because there's no point in having a named operation that duplicates the effects of a mutator
<leonardr> the situation we have here is where we made a mistake--this should have been a mutator method all along
 but we can't change an old version for backwards compatibility reasons
<danilos> leonardr, well, I can imagine someone wanting to keep both so you don't have to port client code, no?
 leonardr, maybe that'd be hidden by things like launchpadlib instead, so I am just wondering
<leonardr> danilos: this falls into the category of 'if you don't want to port code, don't use the new version'
<leonardr> it's an easy change to make
<danilos> leonardr, ok, as long as it's recognized as being a use-case (or not), I think it's fine; some explicit documentation might be useful, if you agree
 leonardr, anyway, with that considered, r=me