)]}'
{"nova/compute/resource_tracker.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":6873,"name":"Matt Riedemann","email":"mriedem.os@gmail.com","username":"mriedem"},"change_message_id":"c135d2c066770b3df81da4374fc25574c9a78008","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":1273,"context_line":"            instance.uuid, cn.uuid, instance.user_id, instance.project_id,"},{"line_number":1274,"context_line":"            my_resources)"},{"line_number":1275,"context_line":"        if not res:"},{"line_number":1276,"context_line":"            LOG.error(\u0027Failed to clean allocation of a migrated instance\u0027,"},{"line_number":1277,"context_line":"                      instance\u003dinstance)"},{"line_number":1278,"context_line":""},{"line_number":1279,"context_line":"    def _verify_resources(self, resources):"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"9f436f4f_6330aee9","line":1276,"updated":"2017-08-21 22:53:54.000000000","message":"nit: could throw the node uuid in here like in delete_allocation_for_evacuated_instance - and could move this method closer to delete_allocation_for_evacuated_instance since it\u0027s basically the same.","commit_id":"f4652c0bf90fddfd8e17addcef757c66164d2527"},{"author":{"_account_id":7730,"name":"Sahid Orentino Ferdjaoui","email":"sahid.ferdjaoui@industrialdiscipline.com","username":"sahid"},"change_message_id":"3f92392e91c14f7f76629bcf381c63d1fc70ea77","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":1273,"context_line":"            instance.uuid, cn.uuid, instance.user_id, instance.project_id,"},{"line_number":1274,"context_line":"            my_resources)"},{"line_number":1275,"context_line":"        if not res:"},{"line_number":1276,"context_line":"            LOG.error(\u0027Failed to clean allocation of a migrated instance\u0027,"},{"line_number":1277,"context_line":"                      instance\u003dinstance)"},{"line_number":1278,"context_line":""},{"line_number":1279,"context_line":"    def _verify_resources(self, resources):"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"7f287b81_187d2a1c","line":1276,"in_reply_to":"9f436f4f_6330aee9","updated":"2017-08-22 14:01:33.000000000","message":"Yes they are really close, You could perhaps have one which will be private and used a core function and two publics so we can have different log messages based of the context.","commit_id":"f4652c0bf90fddfd8e17addcef757c66164d2527"},{"author":{"_account_id":8768,"name":"Chris Friesen","email":"chris.friesen@windriver.com","username":"cbf123"},"change_message_id":"84bbbf2012e7037371fdf20cdf8f499ef072851b","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":1229,"context_line":"        my_resources \u003d scheduler_utils.resources_from_flavor(instance,"},{"line_number":1230,"context_line":"                                                             instance.flavor)"},{"line_number":1231,"context_line":"        cn \u003d self.compute_nodes[node]"},{"line_number":1232,"context_line":"        res \u003d self.reportclient.remove_provider_from_instance_allocation("},{"line_number":1233,"context_line":"            instance.uuid, cn.uuid, instance.user_id, instance.project_id,"},{"line_number":1234,"context_line":"            my_resources)"},{"line_number":1235,"context_line":"        if not res:"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":3,"id":"7f287b81_f09dca66","line":1232,"range":{"start_line":1232,"start_character":32,"end_line":1232,"end_character":72},"updated":"2017-08-22 20:11:11.000000000","message":"just have to say this is a confusingly-named routine.  at the very least it should be \"providers\".","commit_id":"1062901190843b350879fdfebdba47a28ea660d3"},{"author":{"_account_id":8768,"name":"Chris Friesen","email":"chris.friesen@windriver.com","username":"cbf123"},"change_message_id":"489cb0a4b1cc3b4cb151976be89fc9a17a1a2b83","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":1229,"context_line":"        my_resources \u003d scheduler_utils.resources_from_flavor(instance,"},{"line_number":1230,"context_line":"                                                             instance.flavor)"},{"line_number":1231,"context_line":"        cn \u003d self.compute_nodes[node]"},{"line_number":1232,"context_line":"        res \u003d self.reportclient.remove_provider_from_instance_allocation("},{"line_number":1233,"context_line":"            instance.uuid, cn.uuid, instance.user_id, instance.project_id,"},{"line_number":1234,"context_line":"            my_resources)"},{"line_number":1235,"context_line":"        if not res:"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":3,"id":"7f287b81_43d97381","line":1232,"range":{"start_line":1232,"start_character":32,"end_line":1232,"end_character":72},"in_reply_to":"7f287b81_160f2e2f","updated":"2017-08-22 22:31:23.000000000","message":"In a resize with remote instance storage wouldn\u0027t we want to update the shared storage provider in the case where we resized to a larger disk?  What about the eventual support of nested resource providers?  (Or would we just specify the top-level one and it\u0027d go through and handle all the nested ones?)","commit_id":"1062901190843b350879fdfebdba47a28ea660d3"},{"author":{"_account_id":6873,"name":"Matt Riedemann","email":"mriedem.os@gmail.com","username":"mriedem"},"change_message_id":"d5735f7d7adfa959e48d6b54a9e7b7a8430f1b31","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":1229,"context_line":"        my_resources \u003d scheduler_utils.resources_from_flavor(instance,"},{"line_number":1230,"context_line":"                                                             instance.flavor)"},{"line_number":1231,"context_line":"        cn \u003d self.compute_nodes[node]"},{"line_number":1232,"context_line":"        res \u003d self.reportclient.remove_provider_from_instance_allocation("},{"line_number":1233,"context_line":"            instance.uuid, cn.uuid, instance.user_id, instance.project_id,"},{"line_number":1234,"context_line":"            my_resources)"},{"line_number":1235,"context_line":"        if not res:"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":3,"id":"7f287b81_03e12b9b","line":1232,"range":{"start_line":1232,"start_character":32,"end_line":1232,"end_character":72},"in_reply_to":"7f287b81_43d97381","updated":"2017-08-22 23:05:50.000000000","message":"Shared storage providers aren\u0027t supported yet because of some of these issues:\n\nhttps://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1707256\n\nSo that\u0027s going to have to be worked out in Queens.\n\nSame with nested resource providers.","commit_id":"1062901190843b350879fdfebdba47a28ea660d3"},{"author":{"_account_id":6873,"name":"Matt Riedemann","email":"mriedem.os@gmail.com","username":"mriedem"},"change_message_id":"52f96458529fca629add0a1cc65ef465099689f1","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":1229,"context_line":"        my_resources \u003d scheduler_utils.resources_from_flavor(instance,"},{"line_number":1230,"context_line":"                                                             instance.flavor)"},{"line_number":1231,"context_line":"        cn \u003d self.compute_nodes[node]"},{"line_number":1232,"context_line":"        res \u003d self.reportclient.remove_provider_from_instance_allocation("},{"line_number":1233,"context_line":"            instance.uuid, cn.uuid, instance.user_id, instance.project_id,"},{"line_number":1234,"context_line":"            my_resources)"},{"line_number":1235,"context_line":"        if not res:"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":3,"id":"7f287b81_160f2e2f","line":1232,"range":{"start_line":1232,"start_character":32,"end_line":1232,"end_character":72},"in_reply_to":"7f287b81_f09dca66","updated":"2017-08-22 21:02:27.000000000","message":"Why? It\u0027s not removing multiple providers from the list of allocations for the instance, that\u0027s the entire point - we want to remove the one for this compute node, but not other allocations for other providers, be those compute nodes or eventually shared storage providers.","commit_id":"1062901190843b350879fdfebdba47a28ea660d3"}]}