)]}'
{"heat/scaling/cooldown.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":8833,"name":"Rabi Mishra","email":"ramishra@redhat.com","username":"rabi"},"change_message_id":"dc9cdcb0b87cf71a1bd3c354648ad020a08365a3","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":45,"context_line":"                    last_adjust \u003d next(six.iterkeys(metadata[\u0027cooldown\u0027]))"},{"line_number":46,"context_line":"                    if not timeutils.is_older_than(last_adjust, cooldown):"},{"line_number":47,"context_line":"                        return False"},{"line_number":48,"context_line":"            except ValueError:"},{"line_number":49,"context_line":"                # occurs when metadata has only {scaling_in_progress: False}"},{"line_number":50,"context_line":"                pass"},{"line_number":51,"context_line":""},{"line_number":52,"context_line":"        # Assumes _finished_scaling is called"},{"line_number":53,"context_line":"        # after the scaling operation completes"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"5a18252c_896e8494","line":50,"range":{"start_line":48,"start_character":12,"end_line":50,"end_character":20},"updated":"2016-04-13 07:34:40.000000000","message":"I\u0027m not sure if this the correct thing to do.  As I understand, the error mentioned would only happen, if max/min size is the same as desired capacity and signals are received(with cooldown specified for both policy and group).\n\nAs mentioned in the bug, I\u0027ve reworked the way cooldown works and should help resolve this issue.","commit_id":"1f834600cc82257fdb5ab1ab8f19e7212d08634f"},{"author":{"_account_id":10487,"name":"Kanagaraj Manickam","email":"mkr1481@gmail.com","username":"kanagarajm"},"change_message_id":"23d717778c7170239411d96192b930ed9330b113","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":45,"context_line":"                    last_adjust \u003d next(six.iterkeys(metadata[\u0027cooldown\u0027]))"},{"line_number":46,"context_line":"                    if not timeutils.is_older_than(last_adjust, cooldown):"},{"line_number":47,"context_line":"                        return False"},{"line_number":48,"context_line":"            except ValueError:"},{"line_number":49,"context_line":"                # occurs when metadata has only {scaling_in_progress: False}"},{"line_number":50,"context_line":"                pass"},{"line_number":51,"context_line":""},{"line_number":52,"context_line":"        # Assumes _finished_scaling is called"},{"line_number":53,"context_line":"        # after the scaling operation completes"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"dab17558_ab04f77d","line":50,"range":{"start_line":48,"start_character":12,"end_line":50,"end_character":20},"in_reply_to":"5a18252c_896e8494","updated":"2016-05-09 07:55:56.000000000","message":"I reproduced this issue by signinaling the policy immediately after scaling stack got created. as it was happening consistently, tried to fix it with some more optimization.\n\nI feel this patch could be merged as this patch is very simple and small, so good to back port to earlier releases And its an corner case but critical bug as once this buggy situation happened for a stack then scaling won\u0027t work on that stack.","commit_id":"1f834600cc82257fdb5ab1ab8f19e7212d08634f"}]}