)]}'
{"/COMMIT_MSG":[{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"10806a054ed7f3c3f9b7c3b846d7d97c0003cad5","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":8,"context_line":""},{"line_number":9,"context_line":"When Unshelving a shelve offloaded server, it goes"},{"line_number":10,"context_line":"through the scheduler to pick new host, where the"},{"line_number":11,"context_line":"RequestSpec.availability_zone is updated."},{"line_number":12,"context_line":"If for any reason scheduling fails, the RequestSpec"},{"line_number":13,"context_line":"AZ remains updated."},{"line_number":14,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":6,"id":"a844d9b9_576acaee","line":11,"updated":"2024-12-04 15:40:52.000000000","message":"If and only IF you asked for it to be changed\nin the unshleve request.\n\nyou didnt specify one it will not be updated and will be used to determin where it unshleves.","commit_id":"28e0ba400a58ebcd86f450697a78815123f19cf2"},{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"10806a054ed7f3c3f9b7c3b846d7d97c0003cad5","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":11,"context_line":"RequestSpec.availability_zone is updated."},{"line_number":12,"context_line":"If for any reason scheduling fails, the RequestSpec"},{"line_number":13,"context_line":"AZ remains updated."},{"line_number":14,"context_line":""},{"line_number":15,"context_line":"This change adds a new field to RequestSpec object,"},{"line_number":16,"context_line":"which won\u0027t be persisted in DB and will be used for"},{"line_number":17,"context_line":"restoring the old AZ in exception handling if the unshelve"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":6,"id":"e0cc2650_533ed4e6","line":14,"updated":"2024-12-04 15:40:52.000000000","message":"yes, so I expect that so I\u0027m not convinced the bug report is valid.\n\nThere are only 2 valid end states for a shelve_offloaded vm.\n\neither it succedded and end in active or fails and reverts to shelve_offloaded.\n\ni woudl personally expect the updated az to remain if we revert to shelve_offloaded.\n\nthat might not be the expectations others have\n\nso I think we should discuss that.","commit_id":"28e0ba400a58ebcd86f450697a78815123f19cf2"}],"/PATCHSET_LEVEL":[{"author":{"_account_id":26250,"name":"Johannes Kulik","email":"johannes.kulik@sap.com","username":"jkulik"},"change_message_id":"7df3ed0fd02944d261815964c74f3a9e442c26ba","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"6f9450eb_b9495244","updated":"2024-03-06 08:06:23.000000000","message":"How does this work? I found [this code](https://github.com/sapcc/nova/blob/master/nova/conductor/manager.py#L1122-L1124) in the conductor which is called before the `unshelve` in the compute manager and sets the `instance.availability_zone` to the new one. By that time, both `RequestSpec` and `Instance` should contain the new AZ afaics.","commit_id":"e0b329b94f29920a0b6b52ce89c0ad35eda77bdd"},{"author":{"_account_id":8864,"name":"Artom Lifshitz","email":"notartom@gmail.com","username":"artom"},"change_message_id":"b7d6ea86e83d822409e82b90389e5c6998dbe5d4","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"2427fdb2_ca8be9aa","updated":"2024-04-15 15:22:05.000000000","message":"This should live on top of https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/914653, and change the functional test to demonstrate the fix.","commit_id":"125c27b2c7db07f80d981f9bd6f0525d12901079"},{"author":{"_account_id":20733,"name":"Rajesh Tailor","email":"ratailor@redhat.com","username":"rajesht"},"change_message_id":"d567694920d685249cd515600533dd57a5109389","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"82ae829f_1f7ac7ab","updated":"2024-04-02 06:52:51.000000000","message":"recheck","commit_id":"125c27b2c7db07f80d981f9bd6f0525d12901079"},{"author":{"_account_id":20733,"name":"Rajesh Tailor","email":"ratailor@redhat.com","username":"rajesht"},"change_message_id":"cdec9124d43644ddc2d4c8f0310894c079c6d338","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"2892aef1_6979d200","updated":"2024-04-08 12:32:26.000000000","message":"recheck Timeout","commit_id":"125c27b2c7db07f80d981f9bd6f0525d12901079"},{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"10806a054ed7f3c3f9b7c3b846d7d97c0003cad5","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":6,"id":"b0367634_581db862","updated":"2024-12-04 15:40:52.000000000","message":"at a minium this needs a release note calling out the upgrade impact as this si a workflow change for anyone who relied on the prior behvior.\n\nboth are valid (update or non updated AZ) and thsie is a user visabel semantic change to the api. so at the minium it need an upgrade release note.\n\nim not sure if this need a microversion or not too.\n\nim not saying i disagree with the direction. it does not match my expecations\nbut if we do this we also need to consider the unshelve to host code path.\n\ni have not looked to see if we would need a similar change there but the behavior shoudl be consistent.\n\nso lets dicuss this before proceeding","commit_id":"28e0ba400a58ebcd86f450697a78815123f19cf2"},{"author":{"_account_id":20733,"name":"Rajesh Tailor","email":"ratailor@redhat.com","username":"rajesht"},"change_message_id":"da0b4e8eef90588a80eb0170c4e87adeac0d0fc6","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":6,"id":"75cd006b_66225cdf","updated":"2024-07-30 13:48:55.000000000","message":"recheck nova-next TIMED_OUT","commit_id":"28e0ba400a58ebcd86f450697a78815123f19cf2"}]}