)]}'
{"/COMMIT_MSG":[{"author":{"_account_id":5314,"name":"Brian Rosmaita","email":"rosmaita.fossdev@gmail.com","username":"brian-rosmaita"},"change_message_id":"70241fbeaf01d504963b1db6a3478c2dc8912a0f","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":5,"context_line":"CommitDate: 2021-03-18 01:26:28 +0000"},{"line_number":6,"context_line":""},{"line_number":7,"context_line":"Bug fix for revert to snapshot feature"},{"line_number":8,"context_line":""},{"line_number":9,"context_line":"Change-Id: Iee7d2e8d935a806f92f3991a943a458f5b74ef48"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":3,"id":"c7cd2205_3e34a64a","line":8,"updated":"2021-03-18 19:48:15.000000000","message":"It would be good to say something about what the bug was and how you are fixing it.  If you file a bug, you can say what the bug is in Launchpad, and then here in this commit message you can just give a sentence or two about making the API call instead of using the volume\u0027s last_snap.  \n\nI just noticed that your release note mentions a bug, so you can add\n\n  Closes-bug: #1918099\n\nthe line before the Change-Id.  But you should some details to the bug in that case, right now it doesn\u0027t convey any useful information.  (The goal is to help out the next person who has to maintain the driver.  You need to let them know why you made this change.)","commit_id":"47a7b981e3f9f08296305e0aebca1b1708355fbf"}],"cinder/tests/unit/volume/drivers/test_nimble.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":5314,"name":"Brian Rosmaita","email":"rosmaita.fossdev@gmail.com","username":"brian-rosmaita"},"change_message_id":"70241fbeaf01d504963b1db6a3478c2dc8912a0f","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":168,"context_line":"                            \u0027last_snap\u0027: {\u0027snap_id\u0027: fake.SNAPSHOT_ID}}"},{"line_number":169,"context_line":""},{"line_number":170,"context_line":"FAKE_SNAP_INFO_REVERT \u003d {\u0027name\u0027: \u0027testsnap\u0027,"},{"line_number":171,"context_line":"                         \u0027id\u0027: fake.SNAPSHOT_ID}"},{"line_number":172,"context_line":""},{"line_number":173,"context_line":"FAKE_CREATE_VOLUME_NEGATIVE_RESPONSE \u003d exception.VolumeBackendAPIException("},{"line_number":174,"context_line":"    \"Volume testvolume not found\")"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":3,"id":"39edf19c_f878a6a6","line":171,"range":{"start_line":171,"start_character":31,"end_line":171,"end_character":47},"updated":"2021-03-18 19:48:15.000000000","message":"As far as I can tell, the bug is caused by using the snap_id in last_snap from the volume instead of making a call out to the API to get the snap_id.  Since the value of \u0027id\u0027 here is the same as snap_id on line 168, there\u0027s no way to tell if you\u0027re getting the id from the volume info or from making the API call.  If you make this fake.SNAPSHOT_ID_2 or something, then you can change the expected calls at line 1293 to have fake.SNAPSHOT_ID_2 as the value of base_snap_id, and then you\u0027ll know the code is getting the value from the API call.   Or you can do something completely different--the key thing is that you should have a test that can detect the bug you\u0027re fixing.","commit_id":"47a7b981e3f9f08296305e0aebca1b1708355fbf"}],"releasenotes/notes/1918099-18b26dd9107f19c0.yaml":[{"author":{"_account_id":5314,"name":"Brian Rosmaita","email":"rosmaita.fossdev@gmail.com","username":"brian-rosmaita"},"change_message_id":"70241fbeaf01d504963b1db6a3478c2dc8912a0f","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":3,"id":"c16470d2_25451dbe","line":9,"updated":"2021-03-18 19:48:15.000000000","message":"This only needs one entry.  I suggest using the second one that has the bug link.  If you want you could combine the text by saying \"Fix revert to snapshot not working as expected.\"","commit_id":"47a7b981e3f9f08296305e0aebca1b1708355fbf"}]}