Code review comment for lp:~zeitgeist/zeitgeist/bug580364

Well, I disagree with Markus :-) I think it makes perfect sense to include this - otherwise we have a chicken-and-egg problem.

In theory anyone could set the storage field upon item insertion. It just so happens that the DS we ship is not feature complete. On top of that, 3rd parties could provide their own storage monitor extension which update the storage table correctly (at the very least a networkmanager/connman extension is easy).

Regarding the code:

 1) It looks like testFindStorageNotExistant() is there twice?

 2) Docstrings in the unit tests are not right

 3) Apart from these small things it looks good to me