)]}'
{"ironic/conductor/manager.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":23851,"name":"Riccardo Pittau","email":"elfosardo@gmail.com","username":"elfosardo"},"change_message_id":"6295660487d3e4c0b758b3154c7ba69cb062c86d","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":854,"context_line":"                                  purpose\u003d\u0027continue node deploying\u0027) as task:"},{"line_number":855,"context_line":"            node \u003d task.node"},{"line_number":856,"context_line":""},{"line_number":857,"context_line":"            if node.provision_state !\u003d states.DEPLOYWAIT:"},{"line_number":858,"context_line":"                raise exception.InvalidStateRequested(_("},{"line_number":859,"context_line":"                    \u0027Cannot continue deploying on %(node)s. Node is in \u0027"},{"line_number":860,"context_line":"                    \u0027%(state)s state; should be in %(deploy_state)s\u0027) %"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":3,"id":"1fa4df85_81d048f9","line":857,"updated":"2020-03-18 14:09:46.000000000","message":"what about keeping the expected_state variable and using it here and in the message ?","commit_id":"7f8dcc07ac8efa99c8773599fffcd16137632b30"},{"author":{"_account_id":14826,"name":"Mark Goddard","email":"markgoddard86@gmail.com","username":"mgoddard"},"change_message_id":"8eb30572478cfcb1eb058159a0e91ef6b89c5078","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":854,"context_line":"                                  purpose\u003d\u0027continue node deploying\u0027) as task:"},{"line_number":855,"context_line":"            node \u003d task.node"},{"line_number":856,"context_line":""},{"line_number":857,"context_line":"            # FIXME(rloo): This should be states.DEPLOYWAIT, but we\u0027re using"},{"line_number":858,"context_line":"            # this temporarily to get control back to the conductor, to finish"},{"line_number":859,"context_line":"            # the deployment. Once we split up the deployment into separate"},{"line_number":860,"context_line":"            # deploy steps and after we\u0027ve crossed a rolling-upgrade boundary,"},{"line_number":861,"context_line":"            # we should be able to check for DEPLOYWAIT only."},{"line_number":862,"context_line":"            expected_states \u003d [states.DEPLOYWAIT, states.DEPLOYING]"},{"line_number":863,"context_line":"            if node.provision_state not in expected_states:"},{"line_number":864,"context_line":"                raise exception.InvalidStateRequested(_("},{"line_number":865,"context_line":"                    \u0027Cannot continue deploying on %(node)s. Node is in \u0027"},{"line_number":866,"context_line":"                    \u0027%(state)s state; should be in one of %(deploy_state)s\u0027) %"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":7,"id":"df33271e_d9a57cb7","side":"PARENT","line":863,"range":{"start_line":857,"start_character":12,"end_line":863,"end_character":59},"updated":"2020-03-25 09:58:49.000000000","message":"Given that we have in-tree drivers that did not do this until this change, should we not provide a deprecation period?","commit_id":"de2d907fc34578a2a320f368aa068550ae39425e"},{"author":{"_account_id":10239,"name":"Dmitry Tantsur","email":"dtantsur@protonmail.com","username":"dtantsur"},"change_message_id":"81533fe9bfb3f17c520115abb2ff552217b0811e","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":854,"context_line":"                                  purpose\u003d\u0027continue node deploying\u0027) as task:"},{"line_number":855,"context_line":"            node \u003d task.node"},{"line_number":856,"context_line":""},{"line_number":857,"context_line":"            # FIXME(rloo): This should be states.DEPLOYWAIT, but we\u0027re using"},{"line_number":858,"context_line":"            # this temporarily to get control back to the conductor, to finish"},{"line_number":859,"context_line":"            # the deployment. Once we split up the deployment into separate"},{"line_number":860,"context_line":"            # deploy steps and after we\u0027ve crossed a rolling-upgrade boundary,"},{"line_number":861,"context_line":"            # we should be able to check for DEPLOYWAIT only."},{"line_number":862,"context_line":"            expected_states \u003d [states.DEPLOYWAIT, states.DEPLOYING]"},{"line_number":863,"context_line":"            if node.provision_state not in expected_states:"},{"line_number":864,"context_line":"                raise exception.InvalidStateRequested(_("},{"line_number":865,"context_line":"                    \u0027Cannot continue deploying on %(node)s. Node is in \u0027"},{"line_number":866,"context_line":"                    \u0027%(state)s state; should be in one of %(deploy_state)s\u0027) %"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":7,"id":"df33271e_dcd7294f","side":"PARENT","line":863,"range":{"start_line":857,"start_character":12,"end_line":863,"end_character":59},"in_reply_to":"df33271e_99a81420","updated":"2020-03-25 11:53:22.000000000","message":"Honestly, I\u0027m inclined to revert this change, leaving only a deprecation warning in place. We can remove the hack when we remove support for non-split steps.","commit_id":"de2d907fc34578a2a320f368aa068550ae39425e"},{"author":{"_account_id":14826,"name":"Mark Goddard","email":"markgoddard86@gmail.com","username":"mgoddard"},"change_message_id":"c29c59ebae69c605d093afdb579ebd0ca1aa6534","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":854,"context_line":"                                  purpose\u003d\u0027continue node deploying\u0027) as task:"},{"line_number":855,"context_line":"            node \u003d task.node"},{"line_number":856,"context_line":""},{"line_number":857,"context_line":"            # FIXME(rloo): This should be states.DEPLOYWAIT, but we\u0027re using"},{"line_number":858,"context_line":"            # this temporarily to get control back to the conductor, to finish"},{"line_number":859,"context_line":"            # the deployment. Once we split up the deployment into separate"},{"line_number":860,"context_line":"            # deploy steps and after we\u0027ve crossed a rolling-upgrade boundary,"},{"line_number":861,"context_line":"            # we should be able to check for DEPLOYWAIT only."},{"line_number":862,"context_line":"            expected_states \u003d [states.DEPLOYWAIT, states.DEPLOYING]"},{"line_number":863,"context_line":"            if node.provision_state not in expected_states:"},{"line_number":864,"context_line":"                raise exception.InvalidStateRequested(_("},{"line_number":865,"context_line":"                    \u0027Cannot continue deploying on %(node)s. Node is in \u0027"},{"line_number":866,"context_line":"                    \u0027%(state)s state; should be in one of %(deploy_state)s\u0027) %"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":7,"id":"df33271e_99a81420","side":"PARENT","line":863,"range":{"start_line":857,"start_character":12,"end_line":863,"end_character":59},"in_reply_to":"df33271e_d98e1c2d","updated":"2020-03-25 10:28:09.000000000","message":"We haven\u0027t yet split up the deployment into separate deploy steps yet though. Don\u0027t we need some kind of upgrade note that says drivers need to be in DEPLOYWAIT when calling notify_conductor_resume_deploy?","commit_id":"de2d907fc34578a2a320f368aa068550ae39425e"},{"author":{"_account_id":10239,"name":"Dmitry Tantsur","email":"dtantsur@protonmail.com","username":"dtantsur"},"change_message_id":"762461e502726808a784ed9aec88050c4742215c","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":854,"context_line":"                                  purpose\u003d\u0027continue node deploying\u0027) as task:"},{"line_number":855,"context_line":"            node \u003d task.node"},{"line_number":856,"context_line":""},{"line_number":857,"context_line":"            # FIXME(rloo): This should be states.DEPLOYWAIT, but we\u0027re using"},{"line_number":858,"context_line":"            # this temporarily to get control back to the conductor, to finish"},{"line_number":859,"context_line":"            # the deployment. Once we split up the deployment into separate"},{"line_number":860,"context_line":"            # deploy steps and after we\u0027ve crossed a rolling-upgrade boundary,"},{"line_number":861,"context_line":"            # we should be able to check for DEPLOYWAIT only."},{"line_number":862,"context_line":"            expected_states \u003d [states.DEPLOYWAIT, states.DEPLOYING]"},{"line_number":863,"context_line":"            if node.provision_state not in expected_states:"},{"line_number":864,"context_line":"                raise exception.InvalidStateRequested(_("},{"line_number":865,"context_line":"                    \u0027Cannot continue deploying on %(node)s. Node is in \u0027"},{"line_number":866,"context_line":"                    \u0027%(state)s state; should be in one of %(deploy_state)s\u0027) %"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":7,"id":"df33271e_d98e1c2d","side":"PARENT","line":863,"range":{"start_line":857,"start_character":12,"end_line":863,"end_character":59},"in_reply_to":"df33271e_d9a57cb7","updated":"2020-03-25 10:00:44.000000000","message":"It seems that we\u0027ve had it, given the FIXME above..","commit_id":"de2d907fc34578a2a320f368aa068550ae39425e"}]}