)]}'
{"/COMMIT_MSG":[{"author":{"_account_id":5948,"name":"Oleg Bondarev","email":"obondarev@mirantis.com","username":"obondarev"},"change_message_id":"9b5b9db5b8820af783f52d3667567a51181e96ac","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":9,"context_line":"For TCP/UDP protocol, port vaild range is 0 to 65535, so for a"},{"line_number":10,"context_line":"security group rule, its vaild range is also 0 to 65535. For"},{"line_number":11,"context_line":"IptablesFirewallDriver, if port range starts from 0 to 65535,"},{"line_number":12,"context_line":"it should add this range to iptables rule."},{"line_number":13,"context_line":""},{"line_number":14,"context_line":"Change-Id: If93c54a31d973187889ead2c2797ffdd40a4393d"},{"line_number":15,"context_line":"Closes-bug: #1473965"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":1,"id":"9a41bdd9_183f3988","line":12,"updated":"2015-07-14 14:39:23.000000000","message":"Not sure I understand this description. The bug says that if port range min is 0 then port range max is ignored, right? Can you please state how this patch fixes this?","commit_id":"e10ed10ebc8c450904a55b9416913ff704a9be71"},{"author":{"_account_id":8976,"name":"shihanzhang","email":"ayshihanzhang@gmail.com","username":"shihanzhang"},"change_message_id":"5a6e2150b28ae9c37101ea81829bf642217c20e5","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":9,"context_line":"For TCP/UDP protocol, port vaild range is 0 to 65535, so for a"},{"line_number":10,"context_line":"security group rule, its vaild range is also 0 to 65535. For"},{"line_number":11,"context_line":"IptablesFirewallDriver, if port range starts from 0 to 65535,"},{"line_number":12,"context_line":"it should add this range to iptables rule."},{"line_number":13,"context_line":""},{"line_number":14,"context_line":"Change-Id: If93c54a31d973187889ead2c2797ffdd40a4393d"},{"line_number":15,"context_line":"Closes-bug: #1473965"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":1,"id":"9a41bdd9_1ac14d54","line":12,"in_reply_to":"9a41bdd9_183f3988","updated":"2015-07-15 03:28:00.000000000","message":"ok, I will modify commit message.","commit_id":"e10ed10ebc8c450904a55b9416913ff704a9be71"},{"author":{"_account_id":10257,"name":"Sridhar Gaddam","email":"sgaddam@redhat.com","username":"sridhargaddam"},"change_message_id":"099343cbf9def0489aff51ee0e5978212e2fb1d2","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":4,"context_line":"Commit:     shihanzhang \u003cshihanzhang@huawei.com\u003e"},{"line_number":5,"context_line":"CommitDate: 2015-07-20 11:57:27 +0800"},{"line_number":6,"context_line":""},{"line_number":7,"context_line":"Check the validity of security group rule port range"},{"line_number":8,"context_line":""},{"line_number":9,"context_line":"For TCP/UDP protocol, port vaild range is 0 to 65535, so for a"},{"line_number":10,"context_line":"security group rule, its vaild range is also 0 to 65535. this"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":8,"id":"3a50d1a3_7b04947d","line":7,"updated":"2015-07-20 17:29:58.000000000","message":"@shihanzhang, please update the bug description as it says \"the port of scecurity group rule for TCP or UDP should not be 0\"","commit_id":"2d036e91cb4b90cc2a47aa08f400952aa8e8dcd3"},{"author":{"_account_id":8976,"name":"shihanzhang","email":"ayshihanzhang@gmail.com","username":"shihanzhang"},"change_message_id":"0332d45262df3cee86c9588775e4a88de081ee94","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":4,"context_line":"Commit:     shihanzhang \u003cshihanzhang@huawei.com\u003e"},{"line_number":5,"context_line":"CommitDate: 2015-07-20 11:57:27 +0800"},{"line_number":6,"context_line":""},{"line_number":7,"context_line":"Check the validity of security group rule port range"},{"line_number":8,"context_line":""},{"line_number":9,"context_line":"For TCP/UDP protocol, port vaild range is 0 to 65535, so for a"},{"line_number":10,"context_line":"security group rule, its vaild range is also 0 to 65535. this"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":8,"id":"3a50d1a3_03eb90b1","line":7,"in_reply_to":"3a50d1a3_7b04947d","updated":"2015-07-21 00:41:44.000000000","message":"thx for your suggestion!","commit_id":"2d036e91cb4b90cc2a47aa08f400952aa8e8dcd3"},{"author":{"_account_id":10257,"name":"Sridhar Gaddam","email":"sgaddam@redhat.com","username":"sridhargaddam"},"change_message_id":"099343cbf9def0489aff51ee0e5978212e2fb1d2","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":6,"context_line":""},{"line_number":7,"context_line":"Check the validity of security group rule port range"},{"line_number":8,"context_line":""},{"line_number":9,"context_line":"For TCP/UDP protocol, port vaild range is 0 to 65535, so for a"},{"line_number":10,"context_line":"security group rule, its vaild range is also 0 to 65535. this"},{"line_number":11,"context_line":"patch makes two changes:"},{"line_number":12,"context_line":"1. if a security group rule port_range_min is 0, neutron-server"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":8,"id":"3a50d1a3_bbf21c99","line":9,"updated":"2015-07-20 17:29:58.000000000","message":"nit:s/vaild/valid\nalso in L10.","commit_id":"2d036e91cb4b90cc2a47aa08f400952aa8e8dcd3"},{"author":{"_account_id":8976,"name":"shihanzhang","email":"ayshihanzhang@gmail.com","username":"shihanzhang"},"change_message_id":"0332d45262df3cee86c9588775e4a88de081ee94","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":6,"context_line":""},{"line_number":7,"context_line":"Check the validity of security group rule port range"},{"line_number":8,"context_line":""},{"line_number":9,"context_line":"For TCP/UDP protocol, port vaild range is 0 to 65535, so for a"},{"line_number":10,"context_line":"security group rule, its vaild range is also 0 to 65535. this"},{"line_number":11,"context_line":"patch makes two changes:"},{"line_number":12,"context_line":"1. if a security group rule port_range_min is 0, neutron-server"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":8,"id":"3a50d1a3_83d7a0ec","line":9,"in_reply_to":"3a50d1a3_bbf21c99","updated":"2015-07-21 00:41:44.000000000","message":"Done","commit_id":"2d036e91cb4b90cc2a47aa08f400952aa8e8dcd3"},{"author":{"_account_id":10257,"name":"Sridhar Gaddam","email":"sgaddam@redhat.com","username":"sridhargaddam"},"change_message_id":"37d44b620fb7aa11272585f3a58ac6101fe9c639","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":4,"context_line":"Commit:     shihanzhang \u003cshihanzhang@huawei.com\u003e"},{"line_number":5,"context_line":"CommitDate: 2015-07-21 08:40:34 +0800"},{"line_number":6,"context_line":""},{"line_number":7,"context_line":"the port of scecurity group rule for TCP or UDP should not be 0"},{"line_number":8,"context_line":""},{"line_number":9,"context_line":"For TCP/UDP protocol, port valid range is 0 to 65535, so for a"},{"line_number":10,"context_line":"security group rule, its valid range is also 0 to 65535. this"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":9,"id":"3a50d1a3_8578fdf3","line":7,"updated":"2015-07-21 06:27:12.000000000","message":"Sorry @shihanzhang, this is not what I suggested in my comment.\n\nAfter I read the bug description (i.e., https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1473965) and saw this patch, I felt they are not in sync.\nAFAIU, your original intention in the bug description was to return an error when a security group is created with port-range-min as zero.\nHowever, in this patch, we are allowing a security group rule creation with port-range-min as zero and fixing the issue that is present in Neutron.\n\ni.e., \n\"without your patch\" when a security group rule is created, security groups would add the following iptables rule.\n\nIPtable Rule: -A neutron-openvswi-ie4c5bfaa-7 -p tcp -m tcp -j RETURN\n\nAs you described in the bug report, it means that we were allowing all tcp packets without any check on the port numbers. \n\nNow \"with your patch\", the following security group rule would be created which only allows the configured traffic.\n\nIPtable Rule: -A neutron-openvswi-ie4c5bfaa-7 -p tcp -m tcp -m multiport --dports 0:100 -j RETURN\n\nSo basically we are fixing an issue in Neutron related to port-range-min validation and still allowing the port-range-min to be zero (i.e., commit message is not aligned with the patch).\n\nSo, IMHO there are two changes to be done.\n\n1. Update the Commit message to something like - \"Fix port-range-min validation in Security Groups\"\n\n2. Update the Bug#1473965 description accordingly. \n\nOther than this change, the patch looks good to me. Thanks for fixing it.","commit_id":"6b6c7ced1934028c2f7b0fa2f3c0572482fb2685"},{"author":{"_account_id":8976,"name":"shihanzhang","email":"ayshihanzhang@gmail.com","username":"shihanzhang"},"change_message_id":"3bd306d8a99bcbd61af4f73155bb31d76bd24b0d","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":4,"context_line":"Commit:     shihanzhang \u003cshihanzhang@huawei.com\u003e"},{"line_number":5,"context_line":"CommitDate: 2015-07-21 08:40:34 +0800"},{"line_number":6,"context_line":""},{"line_number":7,"context_line":"the port of scecurity group rule for TCP or UDP should not be 0"},{"line_number":8,"context_line":""},{"line_number":9,"context_line":"For TCP/UDP protocol, port valid range is 0 to 65535, so for a"},{"line_number":10,"context_line":"security group rule, its valid range is also 0 to 65535. this"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":9,"id":"3a50d1a3_405f43e5","line":7,"in_reply_to":"3a50d1a3_8578fdf3","updated":"2015-07-21 06:35:28.000000000","message":"good suggestion!","commit_id":"6b6c7ced1934028c2f7b0fa2f3c0572482fb2685"},{"author":{"_account_id":17096,"name":"Aditi Rajagopal","email":"arajagopal@us.ibm.com","username":"aditirajagopal"},"change_message_id":"e3afc646fd634e1f0d2957901adbc5c648452448","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":10,"context_line":"security group rule, its valid range is also 0 to 65535. this"},{"line_number":11,"context_line":"patch makes two changes:"},{"line_number":12,"context_line":"1. if a security group rule port_range_min is 0, neutron-server"},{"line_number":13,"context_line":"   not set its value to None when l2 agent get this rule for a device."},{"line_number":14,"context_line":"2. For IptablesFirewallDriver, if port range is [0, xxxx], l2 agent"},{"line_number":15,"context_line":"   also need add this rule to iptables."},{"line_number":16,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":10,"id":"3a50d1a3_5b906643","line":13,"updated":"2015-07-21 21:08:36.000000000","message":"This first point here needs to be reworded. If you give me more details as to what you want to say, I can provide a suggestion.","commit_id":"9da67613f35f036391097dc24490e6681d5aeac0"},{"author":{"_account_id":8976,"name":"shihanzhang","email":"ayshihanzhang@gmail.com","username":"shihanzhang"},"change_message_id":"5fc5d958b4b2d49d374dd2f9b29637ef8c47f342","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":10,"context_line":"security group rule, its valid range is also 0 to 65535. this"},{"line_number":11,"context_line":"patch makes two changes:"},{"line_number":12,"context_line":"1. if a security group rule port_range_min is 0, neutron-server"},{"line_number":13,"context_line":"   not set its value to None when l2 agent get this rule for a device."},{"line_number":14,"context_line":"2. For IptablesFirewallDriver, if port range is [0, xxxx], l2 agent"},{"line_number":15,"context_line":"   also need add this rule to iptables."},{"line_number":16,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":10,"id":"3a50d1a3_c6e01699","line":13,"in_reply_to":"3a50d1a3_5b906643","updated":"2015-07-22 00:57:01.000000000","message":"I am sorry I can\u0027t make me understood, I mean:\nbefore this patch, when a l2 agent get security rule for a device through RPC, if this security group rule port_range_min is 0, it will get a None value,\nwith this patch, even if this security group rule port_range_min is 0, it can get 0,\ncan you give a suggestion?","commit_id":"9da67613f35f036391097dc24490e6681d5aeac0"},{"author":{"_account_id":841,"name":"Akihiro Motoki","email":"amotoki@gmail.com","username":"amotoki"},"change_message_id":"81e235b7697ad1a291d333b24a186d743371d8d8","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":4,"context_line":"Commit:     shihanzhang \u003cshihanzhang@huawei.com\u003e"},{"line_number":5,"context_line":"CommitDate: 2015-07-23 16:37:02 +0800"},{"line_number":6,"context_line":""},{"line_number":7,"context_line":"Fix port-range-min validation in Security Groups"},{"line_number":8,"context_line":""},{"line_number":9,"context_line":"For TCP/UDP protocol, port valid range is 0 to 65535, so for a"},{"line_number":10,"context_line":"security group rule, its valid range is also 0 to 65535. this"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":12,"id":"3a50d1a3_d3172143","line":7,"updated":"2015-07-23 09:09:11.000000000","message":"In addition to Oleg\u0027s comment, the summary needs to be updated.\nWe are not fixing the validation logic.\nThe validation on the security group API is not changed.\nHow about \"Fix handling of port-range-min 0 in secgroup RPC and agent\"?","commit_id":"55d0a2b53208e4e212b6e617645c21fdfa0e6d42"},{"author":{"_account_id":8976,"name":"shihanzhang","email":"ayshihanzhang@gmail.com","username":"shihanzhang"},"change_message_id":"20ec0409cb2ca24a484bc7e361b1b527fb867192","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":4,"context_line":"Commit:     shihanzhang \u003cshihanzhang@huawei.com\u003e"},{"line_number":5,"context_line":"CommitDate: 2015-07-23 16:37:02 +0800"},{"line_number":6,"context_line":""},{"line_number":7,"context_line":"Fix port-range-min validation in Security Groups"},{"line_number":8,"context_line":""},{"line_number":9,"context_line":"For TCP/UDP protocol, port valid range is 0 to 65535, so for a"},{"line_number":10,"context_line":"security group rule, its valid range is also 0 to 65535. this"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":12,"id":"3a50d1a3_d3a4014c","line":7,"in_reply_to":"3a50d1a3_13da69e8","updated":"2015-07-23 09:24:23.000000000","message":"Done","commit_id":"55d0a2b53208e4e212b6e617645c21fdfa0e6d42"},{"author":{"_account_id":8976,"name":"shihanzhang","email":"ayshihanzhang@gmail.com","username":"shihanzhang"},"change_message_id":"20ec0409cb2ca24a484bc7e361b1b527fb867192","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":4,"context_line":"Commit:     shihanzhang \u003cshihanzhang@huawei.com\u003e"},{"line_number":5,"context_line":"CommitDate: 2015-07-23 16:37:02 +0800"},{"line_number":6,"context_line":""},{"line_number":7,"context_line":"Fix port-range-min validation in Security Groups"},{"line_number":8,"context_line":""},{"line_number":9,"context_line":"For TCP/UDP protocol, port valid range is 0 to 65535, so for a"},{"line_number":10,"context_line":"security group rule, its valid range is also 0 to 65535. this"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":12,"id":"3a50d1a3_33b5257d","line":7,"in_reply_to":"3a50d1a3_d3172143","updated":"2015-07-23 09:24:23.000000000","message":"agree, thx for your suggestion","commit_id":"55d0a2b53208e4e212b6e617645c21fdfa0e6d42"},{"author":{"_account_id":6854,"name":"YAMAMOTO Takashi","email":"yamamoto@midokura.com","username":"yamamoto"},"change_message_id":"5486755ac783268f6b669ae418c8cb4a269284ef","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":4,"context_line":"Commit:     shihanzhang \u003cshihanzhang@huawei.com\u003e"},{"line_number":5,"context_line":"CommitDate: 2015-07-23 16:37:02 +0800"},{"line_number":6,"context_line":""},{"line_number":7,"context_line":"Fix port-range-min validation in Security Groups"},{"line_number":8,"context_line":""},{"line_number":9,"context_line":"For TCP/UDP protocol, port valid range is 0 to 65535, so for a"},{"line_number":10,"context_line":"security group rule, its valid range is also 0 to 65535. this"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":12,"id":"3a50d1a3_d3a721a5","line":7,"in_reply_to":"3a50d1a3_d3172143","updated":"2015-07-23 09:17:32.000000000","message":"i thought \"validation\" here meant packet filtering.\nbut the suggested text makes more sense.","commit_id":"55d0a2b53208e4e212b6e617645c21fdfa0e6d42"},{"author":{"_account_id":5948,"name":"Oleg Bondarev","email":"obondarev@mirantis.com","username":"obondarev"},"change_message_id":"a1339f8ce44f730577a5d354eb8496287e65d7bc","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":4,"context_line":"Commit:     shihanzhang \u003cshihanzhang@huawei.com\u003e"},{"line_number":5,"context_line":"CommitDate: 2015-07-23 16:37:02 +0800"},{"line_number":6,"context_line":""},{"line_number":7,"context_line":"Fix port-range-min validation in Security Groups"},{"line_number":8,"context_line":""},{"line_number":9,"context_line":"For TCP/UDP protocol, port valid range is 0 to 65535, so for a"},{"line_number":10,"context_line":"security group rule, its valid range is also 0 to 65535. this"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":12,"id":"3a50d1a3_13da69e8","line":7,"in_reply_to":"3a50d1a3_d3a721a5","updated":"2015-07-23 09:20:41.000000000","message":"+1","commit_id":"55d0a2b53208e4e212b6e617645c21fdfa0e6d42"},{"author":{"_account_id":8976,"name":"shihanzhang","email":"ayshihanzhang@gmail.com","username":"shihanzhang"},"change_message_id":"20ec0409cb2ca24a484bc7e361b1b527fb867192","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":4,"context_line":"Commit:     shihanzhang \u003cshihanzhang@huawei.com\u003e"},{"line_number":5,"context_line":"CommitDate: 2015-07-23 16:37:02 +0800"},{"line_number":6,"context_line":""},{"line_number":7,"context_line":"Fix port-range-min validation in Security Groups"},{"line_number":8,"context_line":""},{"line_number":9,"context_line":"For TCP/UDP protocol, port valid range is 0 to 65535, so for a"},{"line_number":10,"context_line":"security group rule, its valid range is also 0 to 65535. this"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":12,"id":"3a50d1a3_13afc92a","line":7,"in_reply_to":"3a50d1a3_d3a721a5","updated":"2015-07-23 09:24:23.000000000","message":"Done","commit_id":"55d0a2b53208e4e212b6e617645c21fdfa0e6d42"},{"author":{"_account_id":17096,"name":"Aditi Rajagopal","email":"arajagopal@us.ibm.com","username":"aditirajagopal"},"change_message_id":"ef4f273072a347bc396bb34126578148a4713cd9","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":13,"context_line":"   get port_range_min real value 0 when it gets this rule for a"},{"line_number":14,"context_line":"   device via RPC."},{"line_number":15,"context_line":"2. For IptablesFirewallDriver, if port range is [0, xxxx], l2 agent"},{"line_number":16,"context_line":"   also need add this rule to iptables."},{"line_number":17,"context_line":""},{"line_number":18,"context_line":"Change-Id: If93c54a31d973187889ead2c2797ffdd40a4393d"},{"line_number":19,"context_line":"Closes-bug: #1473965"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":13,"id":"3a50d1a3_b4a10996","line":16,"updated":"2015-07-23 14:45:57.000000000","message":"Based on the feedback, here is a suggested re-wording for this commit message: \n\nFor TCP/UDP protocols and for security group rules, the valid port range should be [0, 65535]. This patch makes two changes to ensure this:\n\n1. If a security group rule has a port_range_min value of \u00270,\u0027 the l2 agent will retrieve a \u00270\u0027 when it requests the rule for a device via RPC (rather than NONE). \n\n2. For IptablesFirewallDriver, if the port range is [0, xxxx], the l2 agent will add this rule to the iptables.","commit_id":"4f89d9be7317ee5c82716306420e1d5efbcb7b31"},{"author":{"_account_id":15226,"name":"Bharath M","email":"bharath.stacker@gmail.com","username":"bharath"},"change_message_id":"583c1569262dea78b857221a342818522c4ed461","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":13,"context_line":"   get port_range_min real value 0 when it gets this rule for a"},{"line_number":14,"context_line":"   device via RPC."},{"line_number":15,"context_line":"2. For IptablesFirewallDriver, if port range is [0, xxxx], l2 agent"},{"line_number":16,"context_line":"   also need add this rule to iptables."},{"line_number":17,"context_line":""},{"line_number":18,"context_line":"Change-Id: If93c54a31d973187889ead2c2797ffdd40a4393d"},{"line_number":19,"context_line":"Closes-bug: #1473965"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":13,"id":"3a50d1a3_1c1fb5b8","line":16,"in_reply_to":"3a50d1a3_b4a10996","updated":"2015-07-23 19:47:21.000000000","message":"I agree. Aditi\u0027s suggestion is neat and more understandable.","commit_id":"4f89d9be7317ee5c82716306420e1d5efbcb7b31"}],"neutron/tests/unit/agent/linux/test_iptables_firewall.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":1653,"name":"garyk","email":"gkotton@vmware.com","username":"garyk"},"change_message_id":"f7975c66a46919d7cc5b0c4daaa414308c3cd62c","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":235,"context_line":"                \u0027port_range_max\u0027: 100}"},{"line_number":236,"context_line":"        ingress \u003d mock.call.add_rule("},{"line_number":237,"context_line":"            \u0027ifake_dev\u0027,"},{"line_number":238,"context_line":"            \u0027-p tcp -m tcp -m multiport --dports 0:100 -j RETURN\u0027,"},{"line_number":239,"context_line":"            comment\u003dNone)"},{"line_number":240,"context_line":"        egress \u003d None"},{"line_number":241,"context_line":"        self._test_prepare_port_filter(rule, ingress, egress)"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":2,"id":"9a41bdd9_49c382ed","line":238,"updated":"2015-07-15 11:48:45.000000000","message":"why did we need to change this?","commit_id":"b715cb654215bc545a13474f78f462ece5b0865d"},{"author":{"_account_id":8976,"name":"shihanzhang","email":"ayshihanzhang@gmail.com","username":"shihanzhang"},"change_message_id":"5a3ec8f7a2224381713c8aa817a41c879d377eb3","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":235,"context_line":"                \u0027port_range_max\u0027: 100}"},{"line_number":236,"context_line":"        ingress \u003d mock.call.add_rule("},{"line_number":237,"context_line":"            \u0027ifake_dev\u0027,"},{"line_number":238,"context_line":"            \u0027-p tcp -m tcp -m multiport --dports 0:100 -j RETURN\u0027,"},{"line_number":239,"context_line":"            comment\u003dNone)"},{"line_number":240,"context_line":"        egress \u003d None"},{"line_number":241,"context_line":"        self._test_prepare_port_filter(rule, ingress, egress)"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":2,"id":"9a41bdd9_4937d9fe","line":238,"in_reply_to":"9a41bdd9_49c382ed","updated":"2015-07-16 03:14:59.000000000","message":"Done","commit_id":"b715cb654215bc545a13474f78f462ece5b0865d"},{"author":{"_account_id":1131,"name":"Brian Haley","email":"haleyb.dev@gmail.com","username":"brian-haley"},"change_message_id":"c03c5a6396bbcddb0fb37959088852fddfa9d744","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":235,"context_line":"                \u0027port_range_max\u0027: 100}"},{"line_number":236,"context_line":"        ingress \u003d mock.call.add_rule("},{"line_number":237,"context_line":"            \u0027ifake_dev\u0027,"},{"line_number":238,"context_line":"            \u0027-p tcp -m tcp -m multiport --dports 0:100 -j RETURN\u0027,"},{"line_number":239,"context_line":"            comment\u003dNone)"},{"line_number":240,"context_line":"        egress \u003d None"},{"line_number":241,"context_line":"        self._test_prepare_port_filter(rule, ingress, egress)"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":2,"id":"9a41bdd9_f014aee9","line":238,"in_reply_to":"9a41bdd9_49c382ed","updated":"2015-07-15 14:36:12.000000000","message":"I think this change would expose the bug, but I would rather see a new test with a 0-N range.","commit_id":"b715cb654215bc545a13474f78f462ece5b0865d"},{"author":{"_account_id":8976,"name":"shihanzhang","email":"ayshihanzhang@gmail.com","username":"shihanzhang"},"change_message_id":"5a3ec8f7a2224381713c8aa817a41c879d377eb3","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":235,"context_line":"                \u0027port_range_max\u0027: 100}"},{"line_number":236,"context_line":"        ingress \u003d mock.call.add_rule("},{"line_number":237,"context_line":"            \u0027ifake_dev\u0027,"},{"line_number":238,"context_line":"            \u0027-p tcp -m tcp -m multiport --dports 0:100 -j RETURN\u0027,"},{"line_number":239,"context_line":"            comment\u003dNone)"},{"line_number":240,"context_line":"        egress \u003d None"},{"line_number":241,"context_line":"        self._test_prepare_port_filter(rule, ingress, egress)"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":2,"id":"9a41bdd9_a928e59a","line":238,"in_reply_to":"9a41bdd9_d3a72fbb","updated":"2015-07-16 03:14:59.000000000","message":"Done","commit_id":"b715cb654215bc545a13474f78f462ece5b0865d"},{"author":{"_account_id":11682,"name":"Ryan Moats","email":"rmoats@us.ibm.com","username":"regXboi"},"change_message_id":"a0b4d06f064461e658e4a9cb5e5870651f8f06bb","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":235,"context_line":"                \u0027port_range_max\u0027: 100}"},{"line_number":236,"context_line":"        ingress \u003d mock.call.add_rule("},{"line_number":237,"context_line":"            \u0027ifake_dev\u0027,"},{"line_number":238,"context_line":"            \u0027-p tcp -m tcp -m multiport --dports 0:100 -j RETURN\u0027,"},{"line_number":239,"context_line":"            comment\u003dNone)"},{"line_number":240,"context_line":"        egress \u003d None"},{"line_number":241,"context_line":"        self._test_prepare_port_filter(rule, ingress, egress)"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":2,"id":"9a41bdd9_d3a72fbb","line":238,"in_reply_to":"9a41bdd9_f014aee9","updated":"2015-07-15 16:05:52.000000000","message":"+1 to Brian\u0027s comment","commit_id":"b715cb654215bc545a13474f78f462ece5b0865d"},{"author":{"_account_id":8976,"name":"shihanzhang","email":"ayshihanzhang@gmail.com","username":"shihanzhang"},"change_message_id":"5a3ec8f7a2224381713c8aa817a41c879d377eb3","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":235,"context_line":"                \u0027port_range_max\u0027: 100}"},{"line_number":236,"context_line":"        ingress \u003d mock.call.add_rule("},{"line_number":237,"context_line":"            \u0027ifake_dev\u0027,"},{"line_number":238,"context_line":"            \u0027-p tcp -m tcp -m multiport --dports 0:100 -j RETURN\u0027,"},{"line_number":239,"context_line":"            comment\u003dNone)"},{"line_number":240,"context_line":"        egress \u003d None"},{"line_number":241,"context_line":"        self._test_prepare_port_filter(rule, ingress, egress)"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":2,"id":"9a41bdd9_e9390df3","line":238,"in_reply_to":"9a41bdd9_f014aee9","updated":"2015-07-16 03:14:59.000000000","message":"agree","commit_id":"b715cb654215bc545a13474f78f462ece5b0865d"},{"author":{"_account_id":7715,"name":"Hirofumi Ichihara","email":"ichihara.hirofumi@gmail.com","username":"Hirofumi-Ichihara"},"change_message_id":"340c54bdbd595e3734e70bcc87a36df29c4a687c","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":604,"context_line":"        egress \u003d None"},{"line_number":605,"context_line":"        self._test_prepare_port_filter(rule, ingress, egress)"},{"line_number":606,"context_line":""},{"line_number":607,"context_line":"    def _test_filter_ingress_tcp_mport(self, protocol):"},{"line_number":608,"context_line":"        rule \u003d {\u0027ethertype\u0027: protocol,"},{"line_number":609,"context_line":"                \u0027direction\u0027: \u0027ingress\u0027,"},{"line_number":610,"context_line":"                \u0027protocol\u0027: \u0027tcp\u0027,"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":4,"id":"9a41bdd9_48c7ae64","line":607,"updated":"2015-07-16 16:15:07.000000000","message":"This test name confuses developers since it looks like test_filter_ipv4_ingress_tcp_mport and test_filter_ipv6_ingress_tcp_mport. How about \"_test_filter_ingress_tcp_min_port_0\"?\n\nAnyway, it seems duplicate about test_filter_ipv{4,6}_ingress_tcp_mport. I guess that you can integrate the duplication of tests.","commit_id":"3a1dfafb2e0559f10851e4a6efcea23b8fd89c9c"},{"author":{"_account_id":1131,"name":"Brian Haley","email":"haleyb.dev@gmail.com","username":"brian-haley"},"change_message_id":"0d2fb5575f4d03542e569663679d452d35113590","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":604,"context_line":"        egress \u003d None"},{"line_number":605,"context_line":"        self._test_prepare_port_filter(rule, ingress, egress)"},{"line_number":606,"context_line":""},{"line_number":607,"context_line":"    def _test_filter_ingress_tcp_min_port_0(self, protocol):"},{"line_number":608,"context_line":"        rule \u003d {\u0027ethertype\u0027: protocol,"},{"line_number":609,"context_line":"                \u0027direction\u0027: \u0027ingress\u0027,"},{"line_number":610,"context_line":"                \u0027protocol\u0027: \u0027tcp\u0027,"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":5,"id":"9a41bdd9_2c79dffc","line":607,"updated":"2015-07-17 17:40:59.000000000","message":"nit: s/protocol/ethertype","commit_id":"19f9f79ed17f8fccec793d8d129e5ea3fe4ff71f"},{"author":{"_account_id":8976,"name":"shihanzhang","email":"ayshihanzhang@gmail.com","username":"shihanzhang"},"change_message_id":"5b72ded037655ea250f3f800c23e56dfcb6118a8","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":604,"context_line":"        egress \u003d None"},{"line_number":605,"context_line":"        self._test_prepare_port_filter(rule, ingress, egress)"},{"line_number":606,"context_line":""},{"line_number":607,"context_line":"    def _test_filter_ingress_tcp_min_port_0(self, protocol):"},{"line_number":608,"context_line":"        rule \u003d {\u0027ethertype\u0027: protocol,"},{"line_number":609,"context_line":"                \u0027direction\u0027: \u0027ingress\u0027,"},{"line_number":610,"context_line":"                \u0027protocol\u0027: \u0027tcp\u0027,"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":5,"id":"9a41bdd9_fdeb9510","line":607,"in_reply_to":"9a41bdd9_2c79dffc","updated":"2015-07-17 23:57:05.000000000","message":"I got it","commit_id":"19f9f79ed17f8fccec793d8d129e5ea3fe4ff71f"}],"neutron/tests/unit/agent/test_securitygroups_rpc.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":1131,"name":"Brian Haley","email":"haleyb.dev@gmail.com","username":"brian-haley"},"change_message_id":"c03c5a6396bbcddb0fb37959088852fddfa9d744","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":190,"context_line":"            sg1_id \u003d sg1[\u0027security_group\u0027][\u0027id\u0027]"},{"line_number":191,"context_line":"            rule1 \u003d self._build_security_group_rule("},{"line_number":192,"context_line":"                sg1_id,"},{"line_number":193,"context_line":"                \u0027ingress\u0027, const.PROTO_NAME_TCP, \u00270\u0027,"},{"line_number":194,"context_line":"                \u002722\u0027)"},{"line_number":195,"context_line":"            rule2 \u003d self._build_security_group_rule("},{"line_number":196,"context_line":"                sg1_id,"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":2,"id":"9a41bdd9_1006f251","line":193,"updated":"2015-07-15 14:36:12.000000000","message":"I don\u0027t think changing just this one test is the right thing to do as there are other similar tests in here, and one for IPv6 as well.  A new one that tests just this bug would be best.","commit_id":"b715cb654215bc545a13474f78f462ece5b0865d"},{"author":{"_account_id":8976,"name":"shihanzhang","email":"ayshihanzhang@gmail.com","username":"shihanzhang"},"change_message_id":"5a3ec8f7a2224381713c8aa817a41c879d377eb3","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":190,"context_line":"            sg1_id \u003d sg1[\u0027security_group\u0027][\u0027id\u0027]"},{"line_number":191,"context_line":"            rule1 \u003d self._build_security_group_rule("},{"line_number":192,"context_line":"                sg1_id,"},{"line_number":193,"context_line":"                \u0027ingress\u0027, const.PROTO_NAME_TCP, \u00270\u0027,"},{"line_number":194,"context_line":"                \u002722\u0027)"},{"line_number":195,"context_line":"            rule2 \u003d self._build_security_group_rule("},{"line_number":196,"context_line":"                sg1_id,"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":2,"id":"9a41bdd9_89008103","line":193,"in_reply_to":"9a41bdd9_1006f251","updated":"2015-07-16 03:14:59.000000000","message":"agree","commit_id":"b715cb654215bc545a13474f78f462ece5b0865d"},{"author":{"_account_id":841,"name":"Akihiro Motoki","email":"amotoki@gmail.com","username":"amotoki"},"change_message_id":"2b14fe0b825a42740e31d8887af49ec8a6e7e5a1","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":182,"context_line":"            \u0027192.168.1.3\u0027)"},{"line_number":183,"context_line":"        self.assertFalse(self.notifier.security_groups_provider_updated.called)"},{"line_number":184,"context_line":""},{"line_number":185,"context_line":"    def _test_security_group_rules_for_devices_ipv4_ingress_mports("},{"line_number":186,"context_line":"            self, min_port, max_port):"},{"line_number":187,"context_line":"        fake_prefix \u003d FAKE_PREFIX[const.IPv4]"},{"line_number":188,"context_line":"        with self.network() as n,\\"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":11,"id":"3a50d1a3_30a19e46","line":185,"updated":"2015-07-23 08:16:52.000000000","message":"what does \"mports\" mean? I would like to see more clear method name. If the method name is too long, we can use sg_rules for \"security_group_rules\".","commit_id":"0e57f615403daa064d8f69d8862bb57e05185a0d"},{"author":{"_account_id":8976,"name":"shihanzhang","email":"ayshihanzhang@gmail.com","username":"shihanzhang"},"change_message_id":"2c8f4015b3c42552ba2f6b393ec681c06e0e1bce","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":182,"context_line":"            \u0027192.168.1.3\u0027)"},{"line_number":183,"context_line":"        self.assertFalse(self.notifier.security_groups_provider_updated.called)"},{"line_number":184,"context_line":""},{"line_number":185,"context_line":"    def _test_security_group_rules_for_devices_ipv4_ingress_mports("},{"line_number":186,"context_line":"            self, min_port, max_port):"},{"line_number":187,"context_line":"        fake_prefix \u003d FAKE_PREFIX[const.IPv4]"},{"line_number":188,"context_line":"        with self.network() as n,\\"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":11,"id":"3a50d1a3_ab1463e8","line":185,"in_reply_to":"3a50d1a3_30a19e46","updated":"2015-07-23 08:25:29.000000000","message":"hi Akihiro Motoki, thx for your review, \u0027mports\u0027 means multiple port, do think use \u0027_test_sg_rules_for_devices_ipv4_ingress_multiple_ports\u0027?","commit_id":"0e57f615403daa064d8f69d8862bb57e05185a0d"}]}