)]}'
{"ceilometer/agent/manager.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":8290,"name":"liusheng","email":"liusheng2048@gmail.com","username":"LiuSheng"},"change_message_id":"59e9d0ca3e9b8f17dde713450b66b659a24e7d94","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":468,"context_line":"                    group_id \u003d self.construct_group_id(discoverer.group_id)"},{"line_number":469,"context_line":"                    discovered \u003d list(discoverer.discover(self, param))"},{"line_number":470,"context_line":"                    if (discovered and isinstance(discovered[0], dict)"},{"line_number":471,"context_line":"                            and discovered[0].get(\u0027id\u0027)):"},{"line_number":472,"context_line":"                        ids \u003d (d[\u0027id\u0027] for d in discovered)"},{"line_number":473,"context_line":"                        my_ids \u003d (self.partition_coordinator"},{"line_number":474,"context_line":"                                  .extract_my_subset(group_id, ids))"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":3,"id":"1a122d0e_a72a367c","line":471,"range":{"start_line":471,"start_character":29,"end_line":471,"end_character":56},"updated":"2016-05-05 12:14:55.000000000","message":"sorry, why don\u0027t use \"resource_id\" or support both ?\nand how about support if the discovered are objects ?","commit_id":"23cbcf75cb24c4d26b0a7fc5739fd6b24a56433f"},{"author":{"_account_id":6676,"name":"zqfan","email":"aji.zqfan@gmail.com","username":"aji-zqfan"},"change_message_id":"7b5b4e54d8e7db5fa91dca92d400fed17a8a5fd1","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":468,"context_line":"                    group_id \u003d self.construct_group_id(discoverer.group_id)"},{"line_number":469,"context_line":"                    discovered \u003d list(discoverer.discover(self, param))"},{"line_number":470,"context_line":"                    if (discovered and isinstance(discovered[0], dict)"},{"line_number":471,"context_line":"                            and discovered[0].get(\u0027id\u0027)):"},{"line_number":472,"context_line":"                        ids \u003d (d[\u0027id\u0027] for d in discovered)"},{"line_number":473,"context_line":"                        my_ids \u003d (self.partition_coordinator"},{"line_number":474,"context_line":"                                  .extract_my_subset(group_id, ids))"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":3,"id":"1a122d0e_e7354e45","line":471,"range":{"start_line":471,"start_character":29,"end_line":471,"end_character":56},"in_reply_to":"1a122d0e_a72a367c","updated":"2016-05-05 12:48:29.000000000","message":"because only the tripleo discovery returns a data struct defined by ceilometer itself, and it doesn\u0027t have a field id, instead have a resource_id, https://github.com/openstack/ceilometer/blob/master/ceilometer/hardware/discovery.py#L85\n\nI would say such design is bad, comparing to other openstack resource, I don\u0027t want support both, I want to align ceilometer self defined struct with other openstack resource, so I modify the ceilometer defined data struct, add a field id, and pop it when the code wants to extract the metadata\n\nand I never figure out why metadata wants a field named resource_id, i think it is a concept for meter or sample.....................but this field is used in many place of hardware directory","commit_id":"23cbcf75cb24c4d26b0a7fc5739fd6b24a56433f"},{"author":{"_account_id":6676,"name":"zqfan","email":"aji.zqfan@gmail.com","username":"aji-zqfan"},"change_message_id":"6fe0e2170e969c925ee6efc7ffc0ad5fb0dd8fb9","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":468,"context_line":"                    group_id \u003d self.construct_group_id(discoverer.group_id)"},{"line_number":469,"context_line":"                    discovered \u003d list(discoverer.discover(self, param))"},{"line_number":470,"context_line":"                    if (discovered and isinstance(discovered[0], dict)"},{"line_number":471,"context_line":"                            and discovered[0].get(\u0027id\u0027)):"},{"line_number":472,"context_line":"                        ids \u003d (d[\u0027id\u0027] for d in discovered)"},{"line_number":473,"context_line":"                        my_ids \u003d (self.partition_coordinator"},{"line_number":474,"context_line":"                                  .extract_my_subset(group_id, ids))"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":3,"id":"1a122d0e_6aebc3a4","line":471,"range":{"start_line":471,"start_character":29,"end_line":471,"end_character":56},"in_reply_to":"1a122d0e_e7354e45","updated":"2016-05-05 12:55:03.000000000","message":"nova client returns object instead of dict, that is another exception, but with my other changes, this will not be a common case\n\nI can add a check for nova instance for now, but sooner or later, it need be removed","commit_id":"23cbcf75cb24c4d26b0a7fc5739fd6b24a56433f"}]}