)]}'
{"glance/domain/__init__.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":8122,"name":"Cyril Roelandt","email":"cyril@redhat.com","username":"cyril.roelandt.enovance"},"change_message_id":"70d6bec6b5534be5474566303e48a6bf5f149002","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":115,"context_line":"        # never committed, hence still visible and \"undeletable\") can be"},{"line_number":116,"context_line":"        # re-deleted through the normal API path, which re-runs image_destroy"},{"line_number":117,"context_line":"        # and finally sets deleted\u003d1. See LP bug #1452788."},{"line_number":118,"context_line":"        \u0027deleted\u0027: (\u0027deleted\u0027,),"},{"line_number":119,"context_line":"        \u0027deactivated\u0027: (\u0027active\u0027, \u0027deleted\u0027),"},{"line_number":120,"context_line":"    }"},{"line_number":121,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"80a863ef_e09226bb","line":118,"range":{"start_line":118,"start_character":29,"end_line":118,"end_character":30},"updated":"2026-06-22 16:17:46.000000000","message":"This is nice, but it feels a bit like a workaround and we\u0027re going to purposefully use a \"wrong\" graph here :/ \n\nHave you thought about combining both operations in a single atomic write on the DB? Even though that would probably mean we could not keep one operation in the domain layer and the other one in the DB layer. \n\nI\u0027m not sure what the right approach is here, I\u0027m just trying to brainstorm this.","commit_id":"6cebb331a0840fc21505bf0907b9f1d137f2b9f5"}]}