)]}'
{"/COMMIT_MSG":[{"author":{"_account_id":7,"name":"Jay Pipes","email":"jaypipes@gmail.com","username":"jaypipes"},"change_message_id":"b2554ba296971a870e5f466428eff4cd72116933","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":6,"context_line":""},{"line_number":7,"context_line":"cleans up dict.copy() calls"},{"line_number":8,"context_line":""},{"line_number":9,"context_line":"There were a couple method calls that had side effects on dicts passed in.  Added a few tests to confirm that the original dict was not modified by the call, and fixed a couple methods that did have side effects.  Removed a couple of dict.copy() calls in parameter lists for method calls."},{"line_number":10,"context_line":""},{"line_number":11,"context_line":"Change-Id: I1664f59f3cb68a2b4616511481ff7d4c1a9f1cfe"},{"line_number":12,"context_line":"Closes-Bug: #928042"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":1,"id":"AAAAUH%2F%2B544%3D","line":9,"updated":"2014-01-20 21:50:07.000000000","message":"Please wrap commit message at 72 chars per https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/GitCommitMessages.\n\nAlso, it\u0027s not necessary to list out what the patch does; rather, it\u0027s preferred that the commit message indicate the problem and the strategy used to fix it. So perhaps something like the following?\n\n Remove side effects caused by dict parameters passed by reference\n\n Methods that have dicts supplied as parameters may have adverse side effects\n if the method changes the supplied parameter (and does not document that behavior).\n This patch fixes methods that modified supplied dict parameters by using dict.copy()\n to make a copy of the supplied dict parameter.","commit_id":"0fa1a991c193972bf4059ef518bfa49fccbebeb8"}],"keystone/common/controller.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":6486,"name":"Brant Knudson","email":"blk@acm.org","username":"blk-u"},"change_message_id":"fd3b0aa9fa072fbd8a0cf767a1b91d979120f1fc","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":223,"context_line":"    def _normalize_domain_id(self, context, ref):"},{"line_number":224,"context_line":"        \"\"\"Fill in domain_id since v2 calls are not domain-aware."},{"line_number":225,"context_line":""},{"line_number":226,"context_line":"        This will overwrite any domain_id that was inadvertently"},{"line_number":227,"context_line":"        specified in the v2 call."},{"line_number":228,"context_line":""},{"line_number":229,"context_line":"        \"\"\""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":3,"id":"AAAAUH%2F%2Bb6k%3D","line":226,"updated":"2014-01-26 16:17:37.000000000","message":"This won\u0027t \"overwrite\" anymore, so the comment is not accurate. I think the code was written this way on purpose. Look at filter_domain_ref, it does the same thing.\n\n(I think I might have complained about the use of in-out \u0026 return values on the original review but was overruled.)","commit_id":"176efcfb9a4241f6b31ff8746ed75d2b1d1b665e"}]}