)]}'
{"nova/tests/functional/test_boot_from_volume.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":6873,"name":"Matt Riedemann","email":"mriedem.os@gmail.com","username":"mriedem"},"change_message_id":"11ed31205c16b1d4aa0ca63fe5535357a1bc29c7","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":196,"context_line":"            # FIXME(mriedem): Bug 1846777: Assert that there was no caching of"},{"line_number":197,"context_line":"            # the GET /v2/images/{image_id} call. Note that because of this,"},{"line_number":198,"context_line":"            # and the API is blocking on the response while its validating the"},{"line_number":199,"context_line":"            # image so many times, this test is slow."},{"line_number":200,"context_line":"            expected_image_get_count \u003d (server[\u0027min_count\u0027] * len(bdms)) + 1"},{"line_number":201,"context_line":"            self.assertEqual(expected_image_get_count,"},{"line_number":202,"context_line":"                             mock_image_get.call_count)"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":3,"id":"3fa7e38b_61569409","line":199,"range":{"start_line":199,"start_character":34,"end_line":199,"end_character":53},"updated":"2019-10-04 21:43:32.000000000","message":"Even with the image cache fix in the change after this in the series the test takes about 20 seconds on my system. When using NoopConductorFixture rather than starting the conductor service the time is about half so I need to split this out into it\u0027s own test class so it has its own setup.","commit_id":"1bd3f1d9136cd8bb74de9727e478289e99aab237"},{"author":{"_account_id":14070,"name":"Eric Fried","email":"openstack@fried.cc","username":"efried"},"change_message_id":"82543ea94f4889613ab7a86df8cf952a6c42d61a","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":216,"context_line":"        with mock.patch(\u0027nova.image.api.API.get\u0027,"},{"line_number":217,"context_line":"                        wraps\u003dself.image_service.show) as mock_image_get:"},{"line_number":218,"context_line":"            self.api.post_server({\u0027server\u0027: server})"},{"line_number":219,"context_line":"            # FIXME(mriedem): Bug 1846777: Assert that there was no caching of"},{"line_number":220,"context_line":"            # the GET /v2/images/{image_id} call. The expected count is:"},{"line_number":221,"context_line":"            # 2551 \u003d 10 servers * 255 volumes + 1 root bdm check"},{"line_number":222,"context_line":"            expected_image_get_count \u003d (server[\u0027min_count\u0027] * len(bdms)) + 1"},{"line_number":223,"context_line":"            self.assertEqual(expected_image_get_count,"},{"line_number":224,"context_line":"                             mock_image_get.call_count)"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":4,"id":"3fa7e38b_db16424a","line":221,"range":{"start_line":219,"start_character":12,"end_line":221,"end_character":64},"updated":"2019-10-07 15:47:15.000000000","message":"Took me a bit to understand what this comment is saying. As written, it sounds like once the bug is fixed we expect there to be no caching and 2551 calls. But then the assertions are showing that that\u0027s what\u0027s happening. Had to look at the fix to grok it. Perhaps better phrasing would be:\n\nFIXME(mriedem): Bug 1846777: Cache GET /v2/images/{image_id}. Since there\u0027s no caching, the expected call count is currently...","commit_id":"90bc173268c32fd90f5f7013c3fcdb90dd8d22a1"}]}