)]}'
{"/PATCHSET_LEVEL":[{"author":{"_account_id":34975,"name":"Jaromír Wysoglad","email":"jwysogla@redhat.com","username":"jwysogla"},"change_message_id":"cc37170be44e12f076def0cc5e0c67c066d0ff7c","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"505066ad_b0cecaba","updated":"2026-02-24 22:47:35.000000000","message":"I have some reeeeal nitpicks. I probably wouldn\u0027t even point them out if you didn\u0027t need to fix the pep8 failure anyway. See the comments inline. Otherwise I agree with Juan, change looks good and big thanks for the contribution!","commit_id":"29b5f1655610c7f7a740342ffb5dd35a75ff36ec"},{"author":{"_account_id":32968,"name":"Juan Larriba","email":"jlarriba@redhat.com","username":"jlarriba"},"change_message_id":"ea1968050b2e45f6d4f8d628f99f07f9310930bd","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"3ceccedd_c020bfe7","updated":"2026-02-24 14:49:49.000000000","message":"Thank you for your contribution! The change looks good: small and well-tested, I have nothing to complain about the implementation.\n\nHowever, make sure you clean the commit message, it seems that you have squashed two commit changes in the same message and that\u0027s not needed.","commit_id":"29b5f1655610c7f7a740342ffb5dd35a75ff36ec"},{"author":{"_account_id":9816,"name":"Takashi Kajinami","email":"kajinamit@oss.nttdata.com","username":"kajinamit"},"change_message_id":"2de118e7120b2ea86d048a53a37b969982008f6f","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":4,"id":"ffde4b19_8a3e7439","updated":"2026-02-27 04:43:12.000000000","message":"While heat failure is being fiexed by https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/978089 , we still need to dig into the other gnocchi response unmatch.\n\nAccording to the output it seems the response is somehow encoded.\n\n```\n\u003chtml\u003e\n \u003chead\u003e\n  \u003ctitle\u003e400 Bad Request\u003c/title\u003e\n \u003c/head\u003e\n \u003cbody\u003e\n  \u003ch1\u003e400 Bad Request\u003c/h1\u003e\n  The server could not comply with the request since it is either malformed or otherwise incorrect.\u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\ntimespan \u0026#8800; granularity \u0026#215; points\n\n\n \u003c/body\u003e\n ```","commit_id":"f4fccec583256a0d983784be0153b0a0a63aef14"},{"author":{"_account_id":34975,"name":"Jaromír Wysoglad","email":"jwysogla@redhat.com","username":"jwysogla"},"change_message_id":"f79a37e816a602e9010b88fd0880326c8f634281","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":5,"id":"ff619e0e_1f1d96c2","updated":"2026-04-07 09:16:18.000000000","message":"recheck","commit_id":"343dd7dbb8fa4db50ff0dc3d57602a99698aedd8"}],"ceilometermiddleware/tests/test_swift.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":34975,"name":"Jaromír Wysoglad","email":"jwysogla@redhat.com","username":"jwysogla"},"change_message_id":"cc37170be44e12f076def0cc5e0c67c066d0ff7c","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":122,"context_line":"            data \u003d notify.call_args_list[0][0]"},{"line_number":123,"context_line":"            self.assertEqual(\u0027objectstore.http.request\u0027, data[1])"},{"line_number":124,"context_line":""},{"line_number":125,"context_line":"            # New request-count metric"},{"line_number":126,"context_line":"            self._assert_has_api_request(data[2], result\u003d1)"},{"line_number":127,"context_line":""},{"line_number":128,"context_line":"            # Existing bytes metric (don’t assume ordering anymore)"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":2,"id":"2aa7c8f6_445a272b","line":125,"updated":"2026-02-24 22:47:35.000000000","message":"While this comment is valid during the review and provides a hint for the reviewers. IMO it won\u0027t stay relevant forever. Imagine somebody adds another metric in a year from now, then the request count metric won\u0027t be that new. I think this comment can be removed. (or the \"New\" can be removed at which point this\u0027ll just mark that the following few lines are testing the request-count metric)","commit_id":"29b5f1655610c7f7a740342ffb5dd35a75ff36ec"},{"author":{"_account_id":34975,"name":"Jaromír Wysoglad","email":"jwysogla@redhat.com","username":"jwysogla"},"change_message_id":"cc37170be44e12f076def0cc5e0c67c066d0ff7c","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":125,"context_line":"            # New request-count metric"},{"line_number":126,"context_line":"            self._assert_has_api_request(data[2], result\u003d1)"},{"line_number":127,"context_line":""},{"line_number":128,"context_line":"            # Existing bytes metric (don’t assume ordering anymore)"},{"line_number":129,"context_line":"            bytes_m \u003d self._find_measurement("},{"line_number":130,"context_line":"                data[2],"},{"line_number":131,"context_line":"                \u0027storage.objects.outgoing.bytes\u0027,"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":2,"id":"17c8b7c0_e5f15816","line":128,"updated":"2026-02-24 22:47:35.000000000","message":"ditto. Once this gets merged, the comment won\u0027t make complete sense, because \"existing\" here assumes it existed before this patch, which doesn\u0027t matter once merged, similar with \"anymore\". I think you can either remove it or leave just \"don\u0027t assume ordering\".","commit_id":"29b5f1655610c7f7a740342ffb5dd35a75ff36ec"},{"author":{"_account_id":34975,"name":"Jaromír Wysoglad","email":"jwysogla@redhat.com","username":"jwysogla"},"change_message_id":"cc37170be44e12f076def0cc5e0c67c066d0ff7c","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":478,"context_line":"                                           proj_attr: proj})"},{"line_number":479,"context_line":"                with mock.patch(\u0027oslo_messaging.Notifier.info\u0027) as notify:"},{"line_number":480,"context_line":"                    list(app(req.environ, self.start_response))"},{"line_number":481,"context_line":"                    self.assertEqual(calls, len(notify.call_args_list))"},{"line_number":482,"context_line":""},{"line_number":483,"context_line":"    def test_ignore_requests_from_multiple_projects(self):"},{"line_number":484,"context_line":"        app \u003d swift.Swift(FakeApp(), {\u0027ignore_projects\u0027: \u0027skip_proj, ignore\u0027})"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":2,"id":"ce2399b7_5654f6be","line":481,"updated":"2026-02-24 22:47:35.000000000","message":"Nice catch +1","commit_id":"29b5f1655610c7f7a740342ffb5dd35a75ff36ec"}]}