)]}'
{"/PATCHSET_LEVEL":[{"author":{"_account_id":11628,"name":"Michael Johnson","email":"johnsomor@gmail.com","username":"johnsom"},"change_message_id":"8d6ba4fb53604db3ade01e4bd4f82c4f701b3710","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"3b6925cf_4c3ef7dd","updated":"2021-11-22 20:28:41.000000000","message":"Bumping review priority as this is blocking stable/ussuri patches merging.\nhttps://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/designate/+/817547\n","commit_id":"c8cc1c9e6ddc962e1ba4a664c4d816e6f472d5df"},{"author":{"_account_id":13252,"name":"Dr. Jens Harbott","display_name":"Jens Harbott (frickler)","email":"frickler@offenerstapel.de","username":"jrosenboom"},"change_message_id":"6bd08ea1349ffeed59fde7b082d384c99c4268dd","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"abaaf804_bd460bbe","updated":"2021-11-23 06:20:08.000000000","message":"There are other options to unblock ussuri, see my comments there.","commit_id":"c8cc1c9e6ddc962e1ba4a664c4d816e6f472d5df"},{"author":{"_account_id":11628,"name":"Michael Johnson","email":"johnsomor@gmail.com","username":"johnsom"},"change_message_id":"9222893c9b2118ed204a63518b5f7c2a7c02b8da","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"2cb3049f_ec54f287","updated":"2021-11-22 21:52:26.000000000","message":"recheck","commit_id":"c8cc1c9e6ddc962e1ba4a664c4d816e6f472d5df"}],"designate_tempest_plugin/tests/api/v2/test_enabled_api_version.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":13252,"name":"Dr. Jens Harbott","display_name":"Jens Harbott (frickler)","email":"frickler@offenerstapel.de","username":"jrosenboom"},"change_message_id":"6bd08ea1349ffeed59fde7b082d384c99c4268dd","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":51,"context_line":"                versions \u003d self.primary_client.list_enabled_api_versions()[1]["},{"line_number":52,"context_line":"                    \u0027versions\u0027][\u0027values\u0027]"},{"line_number":53,"context_line":"            if user \u003d\u003d \u0027not_auth_user\u0027:"},{"line_number":54,"context_line":"                response \u003d requests.get(self.primary_client.base_url,"},{"line_number":55,"context_line":"                                        verify\u003dFalse)"},{"line_number":56,"context_line":"                headers \u003d {"},{"line_number":57,"context_line":"                    k.lower(): v.lower() for k, v in response.headers.items()}"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"acec5791_cab360e2","line":54,"updated":"2021-11-23 06:20:08.000000000","message":"While I agree that the old code is broken in a general setup, this solution also feels strange to me, since an authorized user is needed to get the catalog. I don\u0027t know how to properly solve this, though, my only suggestion would be to skip it until we have a better idea.\n\nNot directly related, I don\u0027t like the idea of doing three different tests in a loop here, those should be separate tests.","commit_id":"c8cc1c9e6ddc962e1ba4a664c4d816e6f472d5df"},{"author":{"_account_id":11628,"name":"Michael Johnson","email":"johnsomor@gmail.com","username":"johnsom"},"change_message_id":"47f0e9393ba457046b4667e0877b07b9765ed942","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":51,"context_line":"                versions \u003d self.primary_client.list_enabled_api_versions()[1]["},{"line_number":52,"context_line":"                    \u0027versions\u0027][\u0027values\u0027]"},{"line_number":53,"context_line":"            if user \u003d\u003d \u0027not_auth_user\u0027:"},{"line_number":54,"context_line":"                response \u003d requests.get(self.primary_client.base_url,"},{"line_number":55,"context_line":"                                        verify\u003dFalse)"},{"line_number":56,"context_line":"                headers \u003d {"},{"line_number":57,"context_line":"                    k.lower(): v.lower() for k, v in response.headers.items()}"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"8f9a5e50_99572d1b","line":54,"in_reply_to":"acec5791_cab360e2","updated":"2021-11-23 16:28:47.000000000","message":"This is how other projects do this test. I am ok with requiring it to have a catalog (having an account is part of the test anyway).\nTo me it is more about the test itself rather than the setup. Our goal is to make sure that version discovery can occur without a token.\nAs for should this be split out into separate tests, there are arguments on both sides:\n1. It makes disabling and isolating trouble tests easier.\n2. With the new keystone personas there are now over nine personas, so multiplying every API tests into nine or more sub-tests does not seem workable. Iterating over personas inside API tests seems like a better approach.\n3. Iterating over personas, when needed, inside the API tests keeps the test focus (unit of work) on the activity of the test and not details like personas.\n\nPersonally I would prefer to keep the tests focused on the unit of work than the iterations of personas.","commit_id":"c8cc1c9e6ddc962e1ba4a664c4d816e6f472d5df"}]}