)]}'
{"nova/compute/resource_tracker.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":5511,"name":"Nikola Dipanov","email":"ndipanov@redhat.com","username":"ndipanov"},"change_message_id":"100b364f9c5526678547e2b95273cf2c14199bfd","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":130,"context_line":"                  \"MB\", {\u0027flavor\u0027: instance_ref.memory_mb,"},{"line_number":131,"context_line":"                          \u0027overhead\u0027: overhead[\u0027memory_mb\u0027]})"},{"line_number":132,"context_line":""},{"line_number":133,"context_line":"        pci_requests \u003d objects.InstancePCIRequests.get_by_instance_uuid("},{"line_number":134,"context_line":"            context, instance_ref.uuid)"},{"line_number":135,"context_line":"        claim \u003d claims.Claim(context, instance_ref, self, self.compute_node,"},{"line_number":136,"context_line":"                             pci_requests, overhead\u003doverhead, limits\u003dlimits)"},{"line_number":137,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":3,"id":"5a18252c_634cd342","line":134,"range":{"start_line":133,"start_character":8,"end_line":134,"end_character":39},"updated":"2016-04-13 13:10:39.000000000","message":"So I was wondering why we would want to do this at all when it is most likely that those are already set on an instance, and if not - they can be lazy-loaded on access.\n\nThe problem comes when we are migrating an instance because we need the \"new\" PCI requests. We use a horrible hack to get the newer ones from the DB.\n\nWe should really be adding pci_requests to the MigrationContext object and consuming them from there as is the case with NUMA topology.","commit_id":"8fcd8fa0f2e5a0f1c638fe5060db162ab306a88b"},{"author":{"_account_id":5511,"name":"Nikola Dipanov","email":"ndipanov@redhat.com","username":"ndipanov"},"change_message_id":"100b364f9c5526678547e2b95273cf2c14199bfd","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":212,"context_line":"                          \u0027overhead\u0027: overhead[\u0027memory_mb\u0027]})"},{"line_number":213,"context_line":""},{"line_number":214,"context_line":"        pci_requests \u003d objects.InstancePCIRequests.\\"},{"line_number":215,"context_line":"                       get_by_instance_uuid_and_newness("},{"line_number":216,"context_line":"                           context, instance.uuid, True)"},{"line_number":217,"context_line":"        claim \u003d claims.MoveClaim(context, instance, new_instance_type,"},{"line_number":218,"context_line":"                                 image_meta, self, self.compute_node,"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":3,"id":"5a18252c_485a9451","line":215,"range":{"start_line":215,"start_character":44,"end_line":215,"end_character":55},"updated":"2016-04-13 13:10:39.000000000","message":"I assume that the reason we need to do this here is that we may end up with different pci_requests based on a different flavor, but we don\u0027t have a new_ and old like we do for flavor and (since recently) NUMA requests.\n\nThis is a bug IMHO and we should resolve it first. and_newness implies mostly accidental behavior and really should be removed in favor of being explicit (\u0027_new\u0027 and \u0027_old\u0027 like we have with flavors and numa)","commit_id":"8fcd8fa0f2e5a0f1c638fe5060db162ab306a88b"},{"author":{"_account_id":7166,"name":"Sylvain Bauza","email":"sbauza@redhat.com","username":"sbauza"},"change_message_id":"7e3fd96898817c010bc79b7e00cd0c8002619095","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":211,"context_line":""},{"line_number":212,"context_line":"        pci_requests \u003d objects.InstancePCIRequests.\\"},{"line_number":213,"context_line":"                       get_by_instance_uuid_and_newness("},{"line_number":214,"context_line":"                           context, instance.uuid, True)"},{"line_number":215,"context_line":"        claim \u003d claims.MoveClaim(context, instance, new_instance_type,"},{"line_number":216,"context_line":"                                 image_meta, self, self.compute_node,"},{"line_number":217,"context_line":"                                 pci_requests, overhead\u003doverhead,"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":7,"id":"dab17558_861bea7f","line":214,"updated":"2016-05-09 09:00:04.000000000","message":"I was about to -1 saying that I\u0027d prefer to remove that call and provide the PCI requests into the MigrationContext object rather (that method is sooooo bad...) until I saw that change is a necessary prereq for https://review.openstack.org/#/c/307124/ which I think is the right way to go.\n\n++","commit_id":"74fbff88639891269f6a0752e70b78340cf87e9a"}],"nova/tests/unit/compute/test_resource_tracker.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":17973,"name":"Ludovic Beliveau","email":"lbeliveau@gmail.com","username":"lbeliveau"},"change_message_id":"55c9eb6ddbcd006c79c6d3daaf07eeb928c3920e","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":1079,"context_line":""},{"line_number":1080,"context_line":"        mock_save.side_effect \u003d fake_save"},{"line_number":1081,"context_line":"        inst \u003d objects.Instance(host\u003dNone, node\u003dNone, memory_mb\u003d1024,"},{"line_number":1082,"context_line":"                                uuid\u003duuidsentinel.instance1)"},{"line_number":1083,"context_line":"        inst.obj_reset_changes()"},{"line_number":1084,"context_line":"        numa \u003d objects.InstanceNUMATopology()"},{"line_number":1085,"context_line":"        claim \u003d mock.MagicMock()"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":6,"id":"1a122d0e_c22d8e90","line":1082,"updated":"2016-05-05 18:08:44.000000000","message":"This change doesn\u0027t seem related to this patch ?","commit_id":"490d5c91c1255e710dda3bfd95658675f16bf974"},{"author":{"_account_id":7166,"name":"Sylvain Bauza","email":"sbauza@redhat.com","username":"sbauza"},"change_message_id":"7e3fd96898817c010bc79b7e00cd0c8002619095","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":1079,"context_line":""},{"line_number":1080,"context_line":"        mock_save.side_effect \u003d fake_save"},{"line_number":1081,"context_line":"        inst \u003d objects.Instance(host\u003dNone, node\u003dNone, memory_mb\u003d1024,"},{"line_number":1082,"context_line":"                                uuid\u003duuidsentinel.instance1)"},{"line_number":1083,"context_line":"        inst.obj_reset_changes()"},{"line_number":1084,"context_line":"        numa \u003d objects.InstanceNUMATopology()"},{"line_number":1085,"context_line":"        claim \u003d mock.MagicMock()"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":7,"id":"dab17558_f109d22d","line":1082,"updated":"2016-05-09 09:00:04.000000000","message":"nit: not sure I get why you need to change that (unless because the Instance object is not mocked now) but given the PCI hacky sadness, I prefer to make a move and merge that one.","commit_id":"74fbff88639891269f6a0752e70b78340cf87e9a"}]}