)]}'
{"/PATCHSET_LEVEL":[{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"6289f5b80d09366b219d7bd89f203b60ea5605c9","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":10,"id":"c147ee76_2312938c","updated":"2024-01-31 10:46:26.000000000","message":"this should come before we add support in the driver for this.","commit_id":"26f10ba772b6be0bf03aec7c17d50ccc3ce56fba"},{"author":{"_account_id":4690,"name":"melanie witt","display_name":"melwitt","email":"melwittt@gmail.com","username":"melwitt"},"change_message_id":"6bc7dd23d6c5dfa35f672009ab1bb945efca1ff8","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":10,"id":"e5dc482e_21be6ff2","in_reply_to":"c147ee76_2312938c","updated":"2024-02-01 08:33:43.000000000","message":"I moved this (locally) and find a chicken and egg problem with the @reject_ephemeral_encryption decorator on resize and rebuild. If I have this patch before the create patch, for example, in the create patch (which adds the reject decorator) it causes the func tests in this patch to fail with 400 bad request.\n\nNot sure yet what to do.","commit_id":"26f10ba772b6be0bf03aec7c17d50ccc3ce56fba"}],"nova/tests/functional/test_ephemeral_encryption.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":26250,"name":"Johannes Kulik","email":"johannes.kulik@sap.com","username":"jkulik"},"change_message_id":"aedd9be562bdb7c9c406d1020d2e4627882ecf38","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":448,"context_line":"        ex \u003d self.assertRaises("},{"line_number":449,"context_line":"            api_client.OpenStackApiException, self._resize_server, server,"},{"line_number":450,"context_line":"            uuidsentinel.eph_encryption_plain_flavor)"},{"line_number":451,"context_line":"        self.assertEqual(409, ex.response.status_code)"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":2,"id":"9bb9f0eb_5726df0a","line":451,"updated":"2023-12-22 08:49:18.000000000","message":"Would it make sense to also add a test from `eph_encryption_flavor` to `eph_encryption_plain_flavor` or similar to make sure we do not change the `encryption_format` away from the \"default\"? Or is that not possible in the API and will have to be checked later on during the resize process, because that default might have changed since the VM was created?","commit_id":"ece2a32c478b2e4347ec7217536276677e087fe4"},{"author":{"_account_id":4690,"name":"melanie witt","display_name":"melwitt","email":"melwittt@gmail.com","username":"melwitt"},"change_message_id":"c58faf6c74dbde34a1ec6a1a54b9b26459dcb335","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":448,"context_line":"        ex \u003d self.assertRaises("},{"line_number":449,"context_line":"            api_client.OpenStackApiException, self._resize_server, server,"},{"line_number":450,"context_line":"            uuidsentinel.eph_encryption_plain_flavor)"},{"line_number":451,"context_line":"        self.assertEqual(409, ex.response.status_code)"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":2,"id":"b2c2c58c_dcd60bb2","line":451,"in_reply_to":"9bb9f0eb_5726df0a","updated":"2024-01-05 05:55:56.000000000","message":"Hm, yeah. Ultimately what we want to do (I think) is try to ensure the flavor isn\u0027t \"lying\" about what the encryption format for the instance disk is. Because the format is stored in the BDM records, it can\u0027t be changed. But regardless we don\u0027t want to have a flavor showing a format that is inconsistent with what the BDM has stored.\n\nI\u0027m thinking we could check the format stashed in the BDM record and whether it aligns with what\u0027s in the new flavor (if present). \n\nAnd maybe also test going from `no_eph_encryption` to `eph_encryption_disabled` -- that could be allowed because both mean no encryption is happening.","commit_id":"ece2a32c478b2e4347ec7217536276677e087fe4"}]}