)]}'
{"/PATCHSET_LEVEL":[{"author":{"_account_id":16688,"name":"Rodolfo Alonso","email":"ralonsoh@redhat.com","username":"rodolfo-alonso-hernandez"},"change_message_id":"77e256c47b77667ed3d3ab7ce3cd51862fad7f61","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"d19d9054_23e23519","updated":"2024-02-19 08:13:45.000000000","message":"Please add LP reference: #2054203","commit_id":"14f900acc4ad5d7330eb68116f0636ed206588cb"},{"author":{"_account_id":16688,"name":"Rodolfo Alonso","email":"ralonsoh@redhat.com","username":"rodolfo-alonso-hernandez"},"change_message_id":"18f6af4554caa1afaa90c8128062a8ab1a77bb00","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"70368313_c8eb2c7a","updated":"2024-02-18 16:59:08.000000000","message":"Right, this is failing with the latest netaddr version:\nnetaddr.core.AddrFormatError: \u0027101.12.13.00\u0027 is not a valid IPv4 address string!\n\nI don\u0027t know what exact version of netaddr introduced this strict check.","commit_id":"14f900acc4ad5d7330eb68116f0636ed206588cb"},{"author":{"_account_id":13252,"name":"Dr. Jens Harbott","display_name":"Jens Harbott (frickler)","email":"frickler@offenerstapel.de","username":"jrosenboom"},"change_message_id":"771bb28135f98942f3dc455ac1d019255e5a5d6c","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"c90ae60f_f8259937","updated":"2024-02-19 10:44:23.000000000","message":"I mentioned this in the bug report, please consider whether having stricter validation of API inputs is really a bug fix or could be considered a regression","commit_id":"2ed9834047897d6b13a09ffa9cbeed2a4c0cc65b"},{"author":{"_account_id":1131,"name":"Brian Haley","email":"haleyb.dev@gmail.com","username":"brian-haley"},"change_message_id":"c91fc3f3cac09bfc38d4ecb384152a1674a0a0c8","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"0c74f88b_bd87d36e","updated":"2024-02-20 22:44:40.000000000","message":"If/when the time comes that we fix the more general issue of how to support the old, invalid addresses via the API we can worry about testing things like this, but let\u0027s just fix the test here.","commit_id":"2ed9834047897d6b13a09ffa9cbeed2a4c0cc65b"},{"author":{"_account_id":13252,"name":"Dr. Jens Harbott","display_name":"Jens Harbott (frickler)","email":"frickler@offenerstapel.de","username":"jrosenboom"},"change_message_id":"3720ce2415d13e78e0710e6269b3efcd2ac87c29","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"491c4f3d_ea1cc1df","updated":"2024-02-20 12:33:11.000000000","message":"ok, so I won\u0027t block this","commit_id":"2ed9834047897d6b13a09ffa9cbeed2a4c0cc65b"},{"author":{"_account_id":1131,"name":"Brian Haley","email":"haleyb.dev@gmail.com","username":"brian-haley"},"change_message_id":"8d029861021bc748792d499cc041e5ae05850a9f","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"732dce41_04a1dd9b","in_reply_to":"3190978b_d410f422","updated":"2024-02-19 21:29:34.000000000","message":"I would agree this just looks like a bug introduced a long time ago. Guess Rodolfo added it to meeting agenda will talk about it tomorrow.","commit_id":"2ed9834047897d6b13a09ffa9cbeed2a4c0cc65b"},{"author":{"_account_id":16688,"name":"Rodolfo Alonso","email":"ralonsoh@redhat.com","username":"rodolfo-alonso-hernandez"},"change_message_id":"a74913addd9d85584c06711d69a96e288f54f9af","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"3190978b_d410f422","in_reply_to":"c90ae60f_f8259937","updated":"2024-02-19 14:36:06.000000000","message":"I don\u0027t think this is a regression but an stricter check of the API. \u0027101.12.13.00/24\u0027 is an invalid string and should have never been considered as valid.","commit_id":"2ed9834047897d6b13a09ffa9cbeed2a4c0cc65b"}]}