)]}'
{"/PATCHSET_LEVEL":[{"author":{"_account_id":31664,"name":"Omer Schwartz","email":"oschwart@redhat.com","username":"oschwart"},"change_message_id":"0114521dc5d9434785fd01e7c442cc62d0dc670f","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"3f4a07d2_ada91ab3","updated":"2026-04-10 08:03:21.000000000","message":"recheck failure is not related to the patch","commit_id":"7cf74fd79cf507aecb3592ab95fb136094ee42f4"},{"author":{"_account_id":39015,"name":"Abhiram R N","display_name":"Abhiram Narayana","email":"arn@redhat.com","username":"abhiramnarayana"},"change_message_id":"b7f1003ba0367d13dc79205919ec6710a40be029","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":3,"id":"3255d8da_113cfa1f","updated":"2026-04-14 09:32:06.000000000","message":"hi Omer,\n\nI have a behavioral question. if tsigkey_id is configured but TSIG key lookup fails, we log a warning and fall back to sending the message unsigned. Is that intentional? We didnt mention this case in spec specifically.\n\nBut considering the feature this is targeting, fallback to unsigned could hide a configuration/runtime issue and send the request to the wrong view? (And potentially that error comes up else where?)\n\nHaving said that, the current method of fallback to unsigned is might be the  correct way. But I just wanted to clarify","commit_id":"7122970b0913274a1d2c3fbcf2aebc2ecd7307ed"},{"author":{"_account_id":31664,"name":"Omer Schwartz","email":"oschwart@redhat.com","username":"oschwart"},"change_message_id":"2cb6552d981730dbecf0dbca5682426c13c01a53","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":3,"id":"d5b22b69_e9a836b0","in_reply_to":"3255d8da_113cfa1f","updated":"2026-04-15 08:09:38.000000000","message":"You\u0027re right that fallback to unsigned messages would silently send queries to the wrong view (IF) the user assigned an incorrect TSIG key id in the pools.yaml file, or deleted the corrected one and forgot to delete the existing one from the pools.yaml file.\nAfter thinking about it more, both the fallback (which leads to wrong view) and a hard failure would result in the zone going to ERROR status anyway — but a hard failure is more direct and debuggable. Changed to let TsigKeyNotFound propagate instead of catching it. This only applies when tsigkey_id is explicitly configured on a pool target/nameserver — if it\u0027s not set, the code path is unchanged and returns None early.","commit_id":"7122970b0913274a1d2c3fbcf2aebc2ecd7307ed"},{"author":{"_account_id":39015,"name":"Abhiram R N","display_name":"Abhiram Narayana","email":"arn@redhat.com","username":"abhiramnarayana"},"change_message_id":"24857587d0a5b0e87e34863b92580707d2d3873c","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":3,"id":"fe3c0925_b3c15332","in_reply_to":"d5b22b69_e9a836b0","updated":"2026-04-15 09:27:26.000000000","message":"Done","commit_id":"7122970b0913274a1d2c3fbcf2aebc2ecd7307ed"},{"author":{"_account_id":31664,"name":"Omer Schwartz","email":"oschwart@redhat.com","username":"oschwart"},"change_message_id":"4f7e4c9d81a38a4eba173630f5af6acb09e85bac","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":4,"id":"9c0054a8_d0e0c2ce","updated":"2026-05-20 08:12:31.000000000","message":"I think we can merge it","commit_id":"f32902430a41f9bc945aa405ae7509de91fbb1b0"},{"author":{"_account_id":39015,"name":"Abhiram R N","display_name":"Abhiram Narayana","email":"arn@redhat.com","username":"abhiramnarayana"},"change_message_id":"376ba2592eea9874672d170303553572f86df3f8","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":4,"id":"e0e6d399_2234a269","updated":"2026-04-15 09:26:21.000000000","message":"LGTM","commit_id":"f32902430a41f9bc945aa405ae7509de91fbb1b0"},{"author":{"_account_id":31664,"name":"Omer Schwartz","email":"oschwart@redhat.com","username":"oschwart"},"change_message_id":"2c8445303abc2eeb15fac1277dc523991c1885de","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":4,"id":"589f5513_da28b191","updated":"2026-05-18 12:50:52.000000000","message":"hello potential reviewers. I am planning to merge this patch soon","commit_id":"f32902430a41f9bc945aa405ae7509de91fbb1b0"}],"designate/worker/tasks/zone.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":39015,"name":"Abhiram R N","display_name":"Abhiram Narayana","email":"arn@redhat.com","username":"abhiramnarayana"},"change_message_id":"b7f1003ba0367d13dc79205919ec6710a40be029","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":59,"context_line":"            return None"},{"line_number":60,"context_line":"        try:"},{"line_number":61,"context_line":"            return self.storage.get_tsigkey(self.context, tsigkey_id)"},{"line_number":62,"context_line":"        except Exception:"},{"line_number":63,"context_line":"            LOG.warning("},{"line_number":64,"context_line":"                \u0027Failed to resolve tsigkey_id\u003d%(tsigkey_id)s for \u0027"},{"line_number":65,"context_line":"                \u0027target\u003d%(target)s\u0027,"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":3,"id":"76a4b4b9_5b511130","line":62,"updated":"2026-04-14 09:32:06.000000000","message":"Would it be sufficient to catch exceptions.TsigKeyNotFound (or a smaller set of expected lookup failures) rather than Exception broadly?","commit_id":"7122970b0913274a1d2c3fbcf2aebc2ecd7307ed"},{"author":{"_account_id":39015,"name":"Abhiram R N","display_name":"Abhiram Narayana","email":"arn@redhat.com","username":"abhiramnarayana"},"change_message_id":"24857587d0a5b0e87e34863b92580707d2d3873c","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":59,"context_line":"            return None"},{"line_number":60,"context_line":"        try:"},{"line_number":61,"context_line":"            return self.storage.get_tsigkey(self.context, tsigkey_id)"},{"line_number":62,"context_line":"        except Exception:"},{"line_number":63,"context_line":"            LOG.warning("},{"line_number":64,"context_line":"                \u0027Failed to resolve tsigkey_id\u003d%(tsigkey_id)s for \u0027"},{"line_number":65,"context_line":"                \u0027target\u003d%(target)s\u0027,"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":3,"id":"d0f016cf_c04b2530","line":62,"in_reply_to":"4c33c0a5_45bce147","updated":"2026-04-15 09:27:26.000000000","message":"Done","commit_id":"7122970b0913274a1d2c3fbcf2aebc2ecd7307ed"},{"author":{"_account_id":31664,"name":"Omer Schwartz","email":"oschwart@redhat.com","username":"oschwart"},"change_message_id":"2cb6552d981730dbecf0dbca5682426c13c01a53","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":59,"context_line":"            return None"},{"line_number":60,"context_line":"        try:"},{"line_number":61,"context_line":"            return self.storage.get_tsigkey(self.context, tsigkey_id)"},{"line_number":62,"context_line":"        except Exception:"},{"line_number":63,"context_line":"            LOG.warning("},{"line_number":64,"context_line":"                \u0027Failed to resolve tsigkey_id\u003d%(tsigkey_id)s for \u0027"},{"line_number":65,"context_line":"                \u0027target\u003d%(target)s\u0027,"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":3,"id":"4c33c0a5_45bce147","line":62,"in_reply_to":"76a4b4b9_5b511130","updated":"2026-04-15 08:09:38.000000000","message":"Good catch. I removed the try/except from both _resolve_tsig_key and _resolve_nameserver_tsig_keys entirely — TsigKeyNotFound now propagates to the caller, where it\u0027s caught and results in the zone being set to ERROR. Other exceptions (DB errors, etc) also propagate normally instead of being silently swallowed.","commit_id":"7122970b0913274a1d2c3fbcf2aebc2ecd7307ed"}]}