)]}'
{"/COMMIT_MSG":[{"author":{"_account_id":9816,"name":"Takashi Kajinami","email":"kajinamit@oss.nttdata.com","username":"kajinamit"},"change_message_id":"1e9c7631836843cbb5f479b66683cd754a5b8525","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":19,"context_line":"was throwing NotFound exception and marking evacuation as FAILED."},{"line_number":20,"context_line":"Solution: Catch NotFound exception and treat as SUCCESS."},{"line_number":21,"context_line":""},{"line_number":22,"context_line":"Testing:"},{"line_number":23,"context_line":"- Added 4 unit tests for notification status filter"},{"line_number":24,"context_line":"- Added 3 unit tests for deleted VM handling"},{"line_number":25,"context_line":"- All tests passing, no regressions"},{"line_number":26,"context_line":""},{"line_number":27,"context_line":"Closes-Bug: #1953707"},{"line_number":28,"context_line":"Closes-Bug: #2023464"},{"line_number":29,"context_line":"Change-Id: Ie825949c91d8f74eacba91c8e45ef313e64d6d5b"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":1,"id":"435101bf_ce627841","line":26,"range":{"start_line":22,"start_character":0,"end_line":26,"end_character":2},"updated":"2026-07-14 16:34:55.000000000","message":"You don\u0027t have to describe what are changed. Please focus on why these changes are required.","commit_id":"45dbea18b6ee72044ba652465bd45b0343f17248"}],"/PATCHSET_LEVEL":[{"author":{"_account_id":9816,"name":"Takashi Kajinami","email":"kajinamit@oss.nttdata.com","username":"kajinamit"},"change_message_id":"1e9c7631836843cbb5f479b66683cd754a5b8525","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"c47a046b_fab42f74","updated":"2026-07-14 16:34:55.000000000","message":"Thanks for proposing this, but could you please create separate changes for individual bugs ? I don\u0027t see any explicit reason why we need to fix these in a single commit.","commit_id":"45dbea18b6ee72044ba652465bd45b0343f17248"},{"author":{"_account_id":9816,"name":"Takashi Kajinami","email":"kajinamit@oss.nttdata.com","username":"kajinamit"},"change_message_id":"bbf3b7ffd39660eb928c157e1b26802e04e838c1","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"105bf7e3_f459fa62","updated":"2026-08-02 14:30:08.000000000","message":"Re-voting -1 because none of my previous comments is addressed.","commit_id":"6ee065ddee88492e7c16433295737b696f1a5175"},{"author":{"_account_id":38176,"name":"Sei Sano","display_name":"say3no","email":"sei.sano@ntt.com","username":"say3no"},"change_message_id":"78cae23d76cce50a0d7ec99da7cbf861fd9fc09f","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"bbf517d4_5f2f8287","updated":"2026-10-09 07:37:29.000000000","message":"Thanks for the updates, and sorry for the slow response from the core side.\n\nAfter looking into this, I agree with Takashi that this is a new feature rather than a bug fix. The status filter of GET /notifications accepts a single value. The DB layer can already filter by a list of statuses, but the API has no way to pass one: \"status\u003dfinished,failed\" is used as one literal value, and \"status\u003dfinished\u0026status\u003dfailed\" silently uses only the last one. The api-ref never promised multiple values, so this is a missing feature, not a broken contract.\n\nDoing this properly also needs more than this change:\n\n* The same request exists for other list APIs. For example 704810 (2020) proposed multiple values for recovery_method and service_type on GET /segments. We should use one design for all of them.\n* We need to decide the format: a comma-separated value as in this change, or repeated parameters like sort_key / sort_dir, which tpatil asked for in 704810. Validating the values with jsonschema was also requested there.\n* Changing what an API accepts needs a new microversion, api-ref updates and client support.\n\nSo I\u0027d like to handle this as a small spec. I\u0027ll take the assignment and bring it to the Indri PTG to decide the direction. You are very welcome to join and to implement it once the design is agreed.\n\nBecause of that, I don\u0027t think we should merge this change as a bug fix. Could you abandon it? The duplicates 995459, 995949 and 996057 can be abandoned as well. I\u0027ll triage LP #1953707 as Wishlist and link the spec there.","commit_id":"6ee065ddee88492e7c16433295737b696f1a5175"}]}