)]}'
{"/PATCHSET_LEVEL":[{"author":{"_account_id":9816,"name":"Takashi Kajinami","email":"kajinamit@oss.nttdata.com","username":"kajinamit"},"change_message_id":"853441661aa255fa09b27871b599f68596760fe1","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"ba046579_217fb8b8","updated":"2023-11-21 23:27:43.000000000","message":"It was earlier mentioned that the new feature does not affect, but actually it did (though I know it was unintentional).\n\nWe have to be aware of this risk when we make aggressive change in stable branches because it breaks expectation for stable branches. This is basically the core why we don\u0027t accept feature brackports when a project adapts to the global stable policy...","commit_id":"de91333fedf214835e978ccdf2e21798a41625e8"},{"author":{"_account_id":30695,"name":"Pedro Henrique Pereira Martins","email":"phpm13@gmail.com","username":"pedrohpmartins"},"change_message_id":"f155b3844083dc81127a126b5bc07bbcd33faab5","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"e2a62994_09434fab","updated":"2023-11-21 19:13:38.000000000","message":"Thanks for this patch, it fixes the problem. By the way, did you check if setting the parameter \"tenant_name_discovery\" to \"True\" would prevent this error to happen? \n\nI am mentioning that because the unique flow where the parameter \"tenant_name_discovery\" is used, always creates a dict with the keys \"user_name\" and \"project_name\" with a value or \"None\" but the keys are there, maybe this error is raising from other flow where was missed to add these new attributes in the notification payload to be processed.\n\nI am leaving a +1 because there is an error and this patch fixes the error, even I think that the presented root cause is not the root cause, maybe I am missing something. Thanks.","commit_id":"de91333fedf214835e978ccdf2e21798a41625e8"},{"author":{"_account_id":4264,"name":"Matthias Runge","email":"mrunge@redhat.com","username":"mrunge"},"change_message_id":"4cd678990ecdb20ae6548f1443a9a2bbeb5b55ef","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"85f5f383_b63fda33","in_reply_to":"0f085771_85c64901","updated":"2023-11-21 21:21:12.000000000","message":"the tenant_discovery_feature uses caching.\n\nOther than that: thank you very much for the patch, it is embarrassing that it was not found earlier.","commit_id":"de91333fedf214835e978ccdf2e21798a41625e8"},{"author":{"_account_id":28356,"name":"Rafael Weingartner","email":"rafael@apache.org","username":"rafaelweingartner"},"change_message_id":"c1402a10bc94ee837f92f0344508503a6e93c2dc","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"752c1874_f2f09997","in_reply_to":"85f5f383_b63fda33","updated":"2023-11-21 22:12:21.000000000","message":"The extra metadata gathering of the dynamic pollsters also uses cache. It is independent of the data that one wants to retrieve, see [1]; the parameter name is ``extra_metadata_fields_cache_seconds``.\n\n[1] https://docs.openstack.org/ceilometer/latest/admin/telemetry-dynamic-pollster.html","commit_id":"de91333fedf214835e978ccdf2e21798a41625e8"},{"author":{"_account_id":28356,"name":"Rafael Weingartner","email":"rafael@apache.org","username":"rafaelweingartner"},"change_message_id":"171fa30b883c01e31b74ca4a64f18aa501ec5edc","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"0f085771_85c64901","in_reply_to":"e2a62994_09434fab","updated":"2023-11-21 19:21:47.000000000","message":"Yes, setting the parameter to `true` would resolve the problem. However, for people that do not need it, such as the ones that use the dynamic pollsters, using the option with the value as False, we would face the described issue.\n\nThe dynamic pollster sub-system already provide mechanism to load extra metadata. Therefore, does not make sense the use of the \"tenant_name_discovery\" feature.","commit_id":"de91333fedf214835e978ccdf2e21798a41625e8"}]}