)]}'
{"/PATCHSET_LEVEL":[{"author":{"_account_id":34975,"name":"Jaromír Wysoglad","email":"jwysogla@redhat.com","username":"jwysogla"},"change_message_id":"23a3d9de96c888df9322e8ac29942e8092e50243","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":3,"id":"932bd559_0949a03f","updated":"2026-05-04 12:40:12.000000000","message":"I think the logic around determining the value for name_or_id in find_domain and find_project should be reversed if we want to allow both to occur in the filters. AFAIK project / domain names don\u0027t need to be unique, while ids will be unique.\n\nImagine we have a case like this:\n```\nIn keystone:\n    id: \"abcd\"; name: \"project_name\"\n    id: \"ef01\"; name: \"project_name\"\n\nIn code:\n    project \u003d find_project(id\u003d\"abcd\", name\u003d\"project_name\")\n```\n\nThis should either return the first project from keystone. Or we could decide to disallow filtering for id and name at the same time, in which case it should raise some appropriate exception.\n\nBut right now, it\u0027ll just look at the name and ignore the id and it\u0027ll end up with the NoUniqueMatch exception, which doesn\u0027t seem correct.","commit_id":"d930c877afac287295e52fa18a168d272d9b4bdc"},{"author":{"_account_id":13177,"name":"Emma Foley","email":"efoley@redhat.com","username":"emma-l-foley"},"change_message_id":"1e59d16d7008c533be5ad0bac2ff59b3c1ae8780","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":3,"id":"4e0de168_e0a37488","in_reply_to":"932bd559_0949a03f","updated":"2026-05-08 16:33:07.000000000","message":"Ok, I see your point, and that makes sense. IDs are better to search on.","commit_id":"d930c877afac287295e52fa18a168d272d9b4bdc"}]}