)]}'
{"barbican/tests/api/controllers/test_acls.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":10873,"name":"Juan Antonio Osorio Robles","email":"jaosorior@redhat.com","username":"ejuaoso"},"change_message_id":"a29b61f46ed15031b083ac6b78b33e88c7a29ec3","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":155,"context_line":"        self.assertEqual(resp.status_int, 404)"},{"line_number":156,"context_line":""},{"line_number":157,"context_line":"    def test_get_secret_acls_with_incorrect_uri_should_fail(self):"},{"line_number":158,"context_line":"        \"\"\"Get secret acls should fail when no acls defined for a secret.\"\"\""},{"line_number":159,"context_line":"        secret_id, _ \u003d create_secret(self.app)"},{"line_number":160,"context_line":""},{"line_number":161,"context_line":"        resp \u003d self.app.get("}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"7aaa499b_6655101c","line":158,"updated":"2015-04-12 13:44:42.000000000","message":"this docstring is not appropriate for the function","commit_id":"8abe3e3634b5c45c6e615c5f15e7fdccc3f073be"},{"author":{"_account_id":1091,"name":"Arun Kant","email":"arukant@cisco.com","username":"arunkant-uws"},"change_message_id":"4215bf7549aba0023e790f82199bc68362234712","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":155,"context_line":"        self.assertEqual(resp.status_int, 404)"},{"line_number":156,"context_line":""},{"line_number":157,"context_line":"    def test_get_secret_acls_with_incorrect_uri_should_fail(self):"},{"line_number":158,"context_line":"        \"\"\"Get secret acls should fail when no acls defined for a secret.\"\"\""},{"line_number":159,"context_line":"        secret_id, _ \u003d create_secret(self.app)"},{"line_number":160,"context_line":""},{"line_number":161,"context_line":"        resp \u003d self.app.get("}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"7aaa499b_2a30cd00","line":158,"in_reply_to":"7aaa499b_6655101c","updated":"2015-04-13 17:49:56.000000000","message":"Will correct it in next patch.","commit_id":"8abe3e3634b5c45c6e615c5f15e7fdccc3f073be"},{"author":{"_account_id":7764,"name":"Peter Hamilton","email":"peter.hamilton@jhuapl.edu","username":"Peter"},"change_message_id":"d77b7780b8131c9d7f3930c41e65617bd304fdc7","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":155,"context_line":"        self.assertEqual(resp.status_int, 404)"},{"line_number":156,"context_line":""},{"line_number":157,"context_line":"    def test_get_secret_acls_with_incorrect_uri_should_fail(self):"},{"line_number":158,"context_line":"        \"\"\"Get secret acls should fail when no acls defined for a secret.\"\"\""},{"line_number":159,"context_line":"        secret_id, _ \u003d create_secret(self.app)"},{"line_number":160,"context_line":""},{"line_number":161,"context_line":"        resp \u003d self.app.get("}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":2,"id":"7a016987_3a01e2af","line":158,"updated":"2015-05-20 17:03:50.000000000","message":"This docstring still needs to be corrected.","commit_id":"8f721200e7cc41165e035b09d55f7fbdcfe4444c"}],"barbican/tests/api/test_resources_policy.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":10873,"name":"Juan Antonio Osorio Robles","email":"jaosorior@redhat.com","username":"ejuaoso"},"change_message_id":"a29b61f46ed15031b083ac6b78b33e88c7a29ec3","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":468,"context_line":""},{"line_number":469,"context_line":"        Adding test to cover one rare corner condition when barbican context is"},{"line_number":470,"context_line":"        not available in acl lookup logic. That can happen only when acl lookup"},{"line_number":471,"context_line":"        logic is invoked outside of rbac_enforcer logic. To have coverage"},{"line_number":472,"context_line":"        around that condition, test makes barbican context read logic to"},{"line_number":473,"context_line":"        return None after first call. In this case, rbac error needs to be"},{"line_number":474,"context_line":"        raised as it will behave as missing ACL case with different token"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"7aaa499b_a622f8b7","line":471,"updated":"2015-04-12 13:44:42.000000000","message":"and when could it be invoked outside of the rbac enforcer logic?","commit_id":"8abe3e3634b5c45c6e615c5f15e7fdccc3f073be"},{"author":{"_account_id":1091,"name":"Arun Kant","email":"arukant@cisco.com","username":"arunkant-uws"},"change_message_id":"4215bf7549aba0023e790f82199bc68362234712","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":468,"context_line":""},{"line_number":469,"context_line":"        Adding test to cover one rare corner condition when barbican context is"},{"line_number":470,"context_line":"        not available in acl lookup logic. That can happen only when acl lookup"},{"line_number":471,"context_line":"        logic is invoked outside of rbac_enforcer logic. To have coverage"},{"line_number":472,"context_line":"        around that condition, test makes barbican context read logic to"},{"line_number":473,"context_line":"        return None after first call. In this case, rbac error needs to be"},{"line_number":474,"context_line":"        raised as it will behave as missing ACL case with different token"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"7aaa499b_36639ede","line":471,"in_reply_to":"7aaa499b_a622f8b7","updated":"2015-04-13 17:49:56.000000000","message":"This test is added just for having code coverage around the line (#223).\nhttps://github.com/openstack/barbican/blob/master/barbican/api/controllers/__init__.py#L221-L223\n\n\nAbove code section check was added to make sure if the logic is invoked in non-authenticated pipeline, then return from there as ACL data is not needed. So far, this method is *indirectly* invoked only from rbac logic which \nhas its own barbican context check that\u0027s why above check becomes insignificant in that flow.\n\nI can remove Line 222-223 if that\u0027s preferred.","commit_id":"8abe3e3634b5c45c6e615c5f15e7fdccc3f073be"},{"author":{"_account_id":10873,"name":"Juan Antonio Osorio Robles","email":"jaosorior@redhat.com","username":"ejuaoso"},"change_message_id":"a29b61f46ed15031b083ac6b78b33e88c7a29ec3","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":486,"context_line":"        self._assert_fail_rbac([\u0027admin\u0027, \u0027observer\u0027, \u0027creator\u0027, \u0027audit\u0027],"},{"line_number":487,"context_line":"                               self._invoke_on_get,"},{"line_number":488,"context_line":"                               user_id\u003dself.user_id,"},{"line_number":489,"context_line":"                               project_id\u003d\u0027different_id\u0027)"},{"line_number":490,"context_line":""},{"line_number":491,"context_line":"    def test_should_raise_get_secret_for_different_project_no_acl(self):"},{"line_number":492,"context_line":"        \"\"\"Should raise error when secret and token\u0027s project is different.\"\"\""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"7aaa499b_662cf0ab","line":489,"updated":"2015-04-12 13:44:42.000000000","message":"doesn\u0027t seem to me like a very realistic test case to be honest.","commit_id":"8abe3e3634b5c45c6e615c5f15e7fdccc3f073be"}]}