)]}'
{"/COMMIT_MSG":[{"author":{"_account_id":2813,"name":"Mehdi Abaakouk","email":"sileht@sileht.net","username":"sileht"},"change_message_id":"de5fd8171cc8f4c411d47d6c41643071d2d8a4cf","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":9,"context_line":"test_two_pools_three_listener currently starts, stops, and"},{"line_number":10,"context_line":"subsequently restarts servers while testing pools. This is problematic"},{"line_number":11,"context_line":"if we don\u0027t want to support restarting a server after it has been"},{"line_number":12,"context_line":"stopped."},{"line_number":13,"context_line":""},{"line_number":14,"context_line":"This change discards a server after it has been stopped, and creates a"},{"line_number":15,"context_line":"new one when it is required again."}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":1,"id":"3a29b11f_8eb1fa91","line":12,"updated":"2015-10-20 09:53:49.000000000","message":"Why do you not want to support restart ?\n\nI don\u0027t say we should support it, but this is not explicitly described anywhere in oslo.messaging. If we want to not support it, we must update the docs and warn lib consumer about the new constraint.","commit_id":"69cb49c3215c567c059532b94845a504c98cf65b"},{"author":{"_account_id":9555,"name":"Matthew Booth","email":"mbooth@redhat.com","username":"MatthewBooth"},"change_message_id":"a4864c99fcb78d9a01d2fc62eecc84cbd44c78ec","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":9,"context_line":"test_two_pools_three_listener currently starts, stops, and"},{"line_number":10,"context_line":"subsequently restarts servers while testing pools. This is problematic"},{"line_number":11,"context_line":"if we don\u0027t want to support restarting a server after it has been"},{"line_number":12,"context_line":"stopped."},{"line_number":13,"context_line":""},{"line_number":14,"context_line":"This change discards a server after it has been stopped, and creates a"},{"line_number":15,"context_line":"new one when it is required again."}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":1,"id":"3a29b11f_f0504ed6","line":12,"in_reply_to":"3a29b11f_36b0068a","updated":"2015-10-21 10:26:23.000000000","message":"I was going to update the docs in this change, but on second thoughts that doesn\u0027t make sense: this change doesn\u0027t alter the behaviour, only the test. I\u0027ll update the subsequent patch instead, which does alter the behaviour.","commit_id":"69cb49c3215c567c059532b94845a504c98cf65b"},{"author":{"_account_id":9555,"name":"Matthew Booth","email":"mbooth@redhat.com","username":"MatthewBooth"},"change_message_id":"02f3b488b841fab93f5db5ed981e406233493f73","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":9,"context_line":"test_two_pools_three_listener currently starts, stops, and"},{"line_number":10,"context_line":"subsequently restarts servers while testing pools. This is problematic"},{"line_number":11,"context_line":"if we don\u0027t want to support restarting a server after it has been"},{"line_number":12,"context_line":"stopped."},{"line_number":13,"context_line":""},{"line_number":14,"context_line":"This change discards a server after it has been stopped, and creates a"},{"line_number":15,"context_line":"new one when it is required again."}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":1,"id":"3a29b11f_36b0068a","line":12,"in_reply_to":"3a29b11f_8eb1fa91","updated":"2015-10-21 08:52:35.000000000","message":"This came up in another review and I\u0027m just rolling with it. My original MessageHandlingServer did support restarts, but I took it out after discussion and made this change.\n\nHow should I proceed with this? I could create a spec? Either way, I\u0027m all for good documentation. I guess the docstrings in MessageHandlingServer would be the best place to document this?","commit_id":"69cb49c3215c567c059532b94845a504c98cf65b"}],"oslo_messaging/tests/notify/test_listener.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":2813,"name":"Mehdi Abaakouk","email":"sileht@sileht.net","username":"sileht"},"change_message_id":"de5fd8171cc8f4c411d47d6c41643071d2d8a4cf","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":382,"context_line":"            mocked_endpoint1_calls.append(mocked_endpoint_call(i))"},{"line_number":383,"context_line":""},{"line_number":384,"context_line":"        self.wait_for_messages(50, \u0027pool2\u0027)"},{"line_number":385,"context_line":"        listener2_thread \u003d create_listener(2)"},{"line_number":386,"context_line":"        listener2_thread.start()"},{"line_number":387,"context_line":"        listener3_thread.stop()"},{"line_number":388,"context_line":"        listener3_thread \u003d None"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"3a29b11f_4efd2239","line":385,"updated":"2015-10-20 09:53:49.000000000","message":"You create a new listener. Previously, the tests was reusing the already created one, that was a valid good use case.","commit_id":"69cb49c3215c567c059532b94845a504c98cf65b"},{"author":{"_account_id":9555,"name":"Matthew Booth","email":"mbooth@redhat.com","username":"MatthewBooth"},"change_message_id":"02f3b488b841fab93f5db5ed981e406233493f73","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":382,"context_line":"            mocked_endpoint1_calls.append(mocked_endpoint_call(i))"},{"line_number":383,"context_line":""},{"line_number":384,"context_line":"        self.wait_for_messages(50, \u0027pool2\u0027)"},{"line_number":385,"context_line":"        listener2_thread \u003d create_listener(2)"},{"line_number":386,"context_line":"        listener2_thread.start()"},{"line_number":387,"context_line":"        listener3_thread.stop()"},{"line_number":388,"context_line":"        listener3_thread \u003d None"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"3a29b11f_99a34db2","line":385,"in_reply_to":"3a29b11f_4efd2239","updated":"2015-10-21 08:52:35.000000000","message":"Good point.","commit_id":"69cb49c3215c567c059532b94845a504c98cf65b"},{"author":{"_account_id":9555,"name":"Matthew Booth","email":"mbooth@redhat.com","username":"MatthewBooth"},"change_message_id":"a4864c99fcb78d9a01d2fc62eecc84cbd44c78ec","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":382,"context_line":"            mocked_endpoint1_calls.append(mocked_endpoint_call(i))"},{"line_number":383,"context_line":""},{"line_number":384,"context_line":"        self.wait_for_messages(50, \u0027pool2\u0027)"},{"line_number":385,"context_line":"        listener2_thread \u003d create_listener(2)"},{"line_number":386,"context_line":"        listener2_thread.start()"},{"line_number":387,"context_line":"        listener3_thread.stop()"},{"line_number":388,"context_line":"        listener3_thread \u003d None"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"3a29b11f_10a62aae","line":385,"in_reply_to":"3a29b11f_99a34db2","updated":"2015-10-21 10:26:23.000000000","message":"Ok, I got confused between \u0027listener\u0027 and \u0027server\u0027. So listener \u003d\u003d server, and not re-using the server is the point of this patch.\n\nThis amounts to whether we want to support restarting a server or not. It seems unlikely to me that any users would do this, but I don\u0027t feel qualified to make a judgement. I explicitly removed support for restarting a server from the subsequent patch after discussion, but I\u0027ll happily put it back in again, which would remove the requirement for this patch. Let me know how best to proceed.","commit_id":"69cb49c3215c567c059532b94845a504c98cf65b"}]}