)]}'
{"/COMMIT_MSG":[{"author":{"_account_id":6773,"name":"Lucas Alvares Gomes","email":"lucasagomes@gmail.com","username":"lucasagomes"},"change_message_id":"2afa5e472e5b5f86c1cc739878dfb12cebb20830","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":24,"context_line":""},{"line_number":25,"context_line":"- In accordance with bp/new-ironic-state-machine, target_provision_state"},{"line_number":26,"context_line":"  is changed from DEPLOYDONE to ACTIVE during the deploy phase."},{"line_number":27,"context_line":""},{"line_number":28,"context_line":"Change-Id: I21d7d29f72c9228a03b2b941c61ed36af056de3e"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":3,"id":"3a961159_0dde0d6d","line":27,"updated":"2015-01-08 16:52:58.000000000","message":"This patch seems related to the new-ironic-state-machine blueprint, we should tag it accordingly\n\nRelated-to: blueprint new-ironic-state-machine","commit_id":"bfa88bf1aa863fad7a3317a54d71cbbe7ad080c3"},{"author":{"_account_id":6618,"name":"Ruby Loo","email":"opensrloo@gmail.com","username":"rloo"},"change_message_id":"708b37e318530141d3493637cc5eb91b36354da2","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":23,"context_line":"  patch should introduce the DEPLOYED state."},{"line_number":24,"context_line":""},{"line_number":25,"context_line":"- In accordance with bp/new-ironic-state-machine, target_provision_state"},{"line_number":26,"context_line":"  is changed from DEPLOYDONE to ACTIVE during the deploy phase."},{"line_number":27,"context_line":""},{"line_number":28,"context_line":"Similarly, in the Juno release, the DELETED state was exposed only"},{"line_number":29,"context_line":"on the target_provision_state field."}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":4,"id":"3a961159_a457cb58","line":26,"updated":"2015-01-08 21:21:08.000000000","message":"And maybe mention, \u0027Similarly, when provision_state is DEPLOYFAIL, the target_provision_state used to be NOSTATE; it is now ACTIVE (this consistent with the other DEPLOY states)\u0027.\n\nHmm. Or maybe better. \u0027target_provision_state is changed from DEPLOYDONE or NOSTATE to ACTIVE...\u0027","commit_id":"63226b60f5cec34645e3bc2a194c55fd4d2c8d9a"}],"ironic/common/states.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":5805,"name":"Chris Krelle","email":"nobodycam@gmail.com","username":"nobodycam"},"change_message_id":"cb288599885ce96e85782ec89841f7a3083a967b","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":136,"context_line":"machine.add_state(ERROR, **watchers)"},{"line_number":137,"context_line":""},{"line_number":138,"context_line":"# Add deploy* states"},{"line_number":139,"context_line":"# machine.add_state(DEPLOYDONE, target\u003dACTIVE, **watchers)"},{"line_number":140,"context_line":"machine.add_state(DEPLOYING, target\u003dACTIVE, **watchers)"},{"line_number":141,"context_line":"machine.add_state(DEPLOYWAIT, **watchers)"},{"line_number":142,"context_line":"machine.add_state(DEPLOYFAIL, **watchers)"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":2,"id":"3a961159_14ee3122","line":139,"updated":"2015-01-07 20:18:24.000000000","message":"Thank you for the reference to the States purposed by the state machine spec. this state is not used in the current code. If another rev is pushed up it my be worth adding a comment stating this, though I don\u0027t think it should block the landing of the patch as it is just one step in a series of patches to enable the current FSM not the end goal of the new FSM.","commit_id":"078fa5a13ca0fae7768646f54ee70da06ba11ab2"},{"author":{"_account_id":5805,"name":"Chris Krelle","email":"nobodycam@gmail.com","username":"nobodycam"},"change_message_id":"cb288599885ce96e85782ec89841f7a3083a967b","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":142,"context_line":"machine.add_state(DEPLOYFAIL, **watchers)"},{"line_number":143,"context_line":""},{"line_number":144,"context_line":"# Add delete* states"},{"line_number":145,"context_line":"# machine.add_state(DELETED, target\u003dNOSTATE, **watchers)"},{"line_number":146,"context_line":"machine.add_state(DELETING, target\u003dNOSTATE, **watchers)"},{"line_number":147,"context_line":""},{"line_number":148,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":2,"id":"3a961159_94d94185","line":145,"updated":"2015-01-07 20:18:24.000000000","message":"see my comment above.","commit_id":"078fa5a13ca0fae7768646f54ee70da06ba11ab2"},{"author":{"_account_id":6773,"name":"Lucas Alvares Gomes","email":"lucasagomes@gmail.com","username":"lucasagomes"},"change_message_id":"2afa5e472e5b5f86c1cc739878dfb12cebb20830","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":144,"context_line":""},{"line_number":145,"context_line":"# Add delete* states"},{"line_number":146,"context_line":"machine.add_state(DELETED, target\u003dNOSTATE, **watchers)"},{"line_number":147,"context_line":"machine.add_state(DELETING, target\u003dDELETED, **watchers)"},{"line_number":148,"context_line":""},{"line_number":149,"context_line":"# From NOSTATE, a deployment may be started"},{"line_number":150,"context_line":"machine.add_transition(NOSTATE, DEPLOYING, \u0027deploy\u0027)"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":3,"id":"3a961159_9f6b00b8","line":147,"updated":"2015-01-08 16:52:58.000000000","message":"Same here? \n\nmachine.add_state(DELETING, target\u003dNOSTATE, **watchers)","commit_id":"bfa88bf1aa863fad7a3317a54d71cbbe7ad080c3"},{"author":{"_account_id":2889,"name":"Aeva Black","email":"aeva.online@gmail.com","username":"tenbrae"},"change_message_id":"cfc004d29e4f2cf0c763670803aa9f12480357c4","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":144,"context_line":""},{"line_number":145,"context_line":"# Add delete* states"},{"line_number":146,"context_line":"machine.add_state(DELETED, target\u003dNOSTATE, **watchers)"},{"line_number":147,"context_line":"machine.add_state(DELETING, target\u003dDELETED, **watchers)"},{"line_number":148,"context_line":""},{"line_number":149,"context_line":"# From NOSTATE, a deployment may be started"},{"line_number":150,"context_line":"machine.add_transition(NOSTATE, DEPLOYING, \u0027deploy\u0027)"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":3,"id":"3a961159_e9e7ee0f","line":147,"updated":"2015-01-08 20:06:00.000000000","message":"Yea. I thought (momentarily) about doing this in a separate patch, but I think you\u0027re both correct.\n\nAlso, note the work around in conductor/manager.py do_node_tear_down() where it overrides with\n\n  node.target_provision_state \u003d None","commit_id":"bfa88bf1aa863fad7a3317a54d71cbbe7ad080c3"},{"author":{"_account_id":3099,"name":"David Shrewsbury","email":"dshrewsb@redhat.com","username":"dshrews"},"change_message_id":"61eea1bb1ee765bcf46f753f71fa41fca1a79da3","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":144,"context_line":""},{"line_number":145,"context_line":"# Add delete* states"},{"line_number":146,"context_line":"machine.add_state(DELETED, target\u003dNOSTATE, **watchers)"},{"line_number":147,"context_line":"machine.add_state(DELETING, target\u003dDELETED, **watchers)"},{"line_number":148,"context_line":""},{"line_number":149,"context_line":"# From NOSTATE, a deployment may be started"},{"line_number":150,"context_line":"machine.add_transition(NOSTATE, DEPLOYING, \u0027deploy\u0027)"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":3,"id":"3a961159_f3251bc2","line":147,"in_reply_to":"3a961159_9f6b00b8","updated":"2015-01-08 19:17:26.000000000","message":"I agree with Lucas here. Otherwise, during the \u0027done\u0027 event processing, we\u0027ll end up in DELETED when the current behavior is to go to NOSTATE.","commit_id":"bfa88bf1aa863fad7a3317a54d71cbbe7ad080c3"},{"author":{"_account_id":6618,"name":"Ruby Loo","email":"opensrloo@gmail.com","username":"rloo"},"change_message_id":"708b37e318530141d3493637cc5eb91b36354da2","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":136,"context_line":"machine.add_state(ERROR, **watchers)"},{"line_number":137,"context_line":""},{"line_number":138,"context_line":"# Add deploy* states"},{"line_number":139,"context_line":"# NOTE(deva): Juno shows a target_provision_state of DEPLOYDONE"},{"line_number":140,"context_line":"#             this is changed in Kilo to ACTIVE"},{"line_number":141,"context_line":"machine.add_state(DEPLOYING, target\u003dACTIVE, **watchers)"},{"line_number":142,"context_line":"machine.add_state(DEPLOYWAIT, target\u003dACTIVE, **watchers)"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":4,"id":"3a961159_c4b69788","line":139,"updated":"2015-01-08 21:21:08.000000000","message":"add \"(and NOSTATE for DEPLOYFAIL provision_state)\"\n\nor is that confusing?","commit_id":"63226b60f5cec34645e3bc2a194c55fd4d2c8d9a"},{"author":{"_account_id":6618,"name":"Ruby Loo","email":"opensrloo@gmail.com","username":"rloo"},"change_message_id":"708b37e318530141d3493637cc5eb91b36354da2","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":146,"context_line":"# NOTE(deva): Juno shows a target_provision_state of DELETED"},{"line_number":147,"context_line":"#             this is changed in Kilo to AVAILABLE"},{"line_number":148,"context_line":"# TODO(deva): change NOSTATE to AVAILABLE here"},{"line_number":149,"context_line":"machine.add_state(DELETING, target\u003dNOSTATE, **watchers)"},{"line_number":150,"context_line":""},{"line_number":151,"context_line":"# From NOSTATE, a deployment may be started"},{"line_number":152,"context_line":"machine.add_transition(NOSTATE, DEPLOYING, \u0027deploy\u0027)"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":4,"id":"3a961159_aa41550b","line":149,"updated":"2015-01-08 21:21:08.000000000","message":"I was wondering. Now that you have this, did you try (I suppose I could try) deleting the workaround in conductor/manager.py do_node_tear_down(), where it sets the target_provision_state to None?","commit_id":"63226b60f5cec34645e3bc2a194c55fd4d2c8d9a"}],"ironic/tests/conductor/test_manager.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":6618,"name":"Ruby Loo","email":"opensrloo@gmail.com","username":"rloo"},"change_message_id":"43b7d0e6b9eed2bd120ad146acbe88ce24032976","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":937,"context_line":"        self.assertEqual(states.DEPLOYFAIL, node.provision_state)"},{"line_number":938,"context_line":"        # NOTE(deva): failing a deploy does not clear the target state"},{"line_number":939,"context_line":"        #             any longer. Instead, it is cleared when the instance"},{"line_number":940,"context_line":"        #             is deleted."},{"line_number":941,"context_line":"        self.assertEqual(states.ACTIVE, node.target_provision_state)"},{"line_number":942,"context_line":"        self.assertIsNotNone(node.last_error)"},{"line_number":943,"context_line":"        mock_deploy.assert_called_once_with(mock.ANY)"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":3,"id":"3a961159_a4542bfe","line":940,"updated":"2015-01-08 20:44:01.000000000","message":"To be clear, before this fsm code was added, when the node was in DEPLOYFAIL, the target_provision_state was NOSTATE. So with these changes, it is OK (correct, better?) that the target_provision_state doesn\u0027t get set to NOSTATE, but stays as ACTIVE?","commit_id":"bfa88bf1aa863fad7a3317a54d71cbbe7ad080c3"},{"author":{"_account_id":6618,"name":"Ruby Loo","email":"opensrloo@gmail.com","username":"rloo"},"change_message_id":"e43e871b54f3ff26c3adb6f36a70c7d4a99d9e9b","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":937,"context_line":"        self.assertEqual(states.DEPLOYFAIL, node.provision_state)"},{"line_number":938,"context_line":"        # NOTE(deva): failing a deploy does not clear the target state"},{"line_number":939,"context_line":"        #             any longer. Instead, it is cleared when the instance"},{"line_number":940,"context_line":"        #             is deleted."},{"line_number":941,"context_line":"        self.assertEqual(states.ACTIVE, node.target_provision_state)"},{"line_number":942,"context_line":"        self.assertIsNotNone(node.last_error)"},{"line_number":943,"context_line":"        mock_deploy.assert_called_once_with(mock.ANY)"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":3,"id":"3a961159_04917f51","line":940,"in_reply_to":"3a961159_a4542bfe","updated":"2015-01-08 20:59:52.000000000","message":"Discussed with Devananda. The new fsm has ACTIVE as the target_provision_state when provision_state is DEPLOYFAIL, so yes, we want this change.","commit_id":"bfa88bf1aa863fad7a3317a54d71cbbe7ad080c3"}]}