)]}'
{"oslo/messaging/_drivers/impl_zmq.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":6928,"name":"Ben Nemec","email":"openstack@nemebean.com","username":"bnemec"},"change_message_id":"c6ad0bedc8e69f8eb542bd5415adc8ee5d1bdbeb","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":751,"context_line":"                             _topic, msg, timeout, envelope, _msg_id)"},{"line_number":752,"context_line":"        return None"},{"line_number":753,"context_line":"    else:"},{"line_number":754,"context_line":"        for queue in queues:"},{"line_number":755,"context_line":"            _topic, ip_addr \u003d queue"},{"line_number":756,"context_line":"            _addr \u003d \"tcp://%s:%s\" % (ip_addr, conf.rpc_zmq_port)"},{"line_number":757,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"AAAAW3%2F%2FRBw%3D","line":754,"updated":"2014-04-15 17:15:33.000000000","message":"I would rather not duplicate this loop here.  Wouldn\u0027t it work to change the original loop so that instead of returning method(...) immediately, it saves that return value into res like this new version does, and then return res at the end?","commit_id":"e68b29dcf41c675c92902f403c53d3dea02559e9"},{"author":{"_account_id":7805,"name":"Li Ma","email":"skywalker.nick@gmail.com","username":"Nick"},"change_message_id":"39cb9e1d4bfaf6d5a68372c27b88b013b449e836","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":751,"context_line":"                             _topic, msg, timeout, envelope, _msg_id)"},{"line_number":752,"context_line":"        return None"},{"line_number":753,"context_line":"    else:"},{"line_number":754,"context_line":"        for queue in queues:"},{"line_number":755,"context_line":"            _topic, ip_addr \u003d queue"},{"line_number":756,"context_line":"            _addr \u003d \"tcp://%s:%s\" % (ip_addr, conf.rpc_zmq_port)"},{"line_number":757,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"AAAAXH%2F%2F%2FZQ%3D","line":754,"in_reply_to":"AAAAW3%2F%2FRBw%3D","updated":"2014-04-16 02:06:36.000000000","message":"will fix it soon.","commit_id":"e68b29dcf41c675c92902f403c53d3dea02559e9"},{"author":{"_account_id":6928,"name":"Ben Nemec","email":"openstack@nemebean.com","username":"bnemec"},"change_message_id":"c6ad0bedc8e69f8eb542bd5415adc8ee5d1bdbeb","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":755,"context_line":"            _topic, ip_addr \u003d queue"},{"line_number":756,"context_line":"            _addr \u003d \"tcp://%s:%s\" % (ip_addr, conf.rpc_zmq_port)"},{"line_number":757,"context_line":""},{"line_number":758,"context_line":"            res \u003d method(_addr, context, _topic, msg, timeout, envelope)"},{"line_number":759,"context_line":"        return res"},{"line_number":760,"context_line":""},{"line_number":761,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"AAAAW3%2F%2FRDc%3D","line":758,"updated":"2014-04-15 17:15:33.000000000","message":"Should this be |\u003d or \u0026\u003d ?  I\u0027m not very familiar with what is intended as the return value here, but it seems like just returning the last result isn\u0027t right.","commit_id":"e68b29dcf41c675c92902f403c53d3dea02559e9"},{"author":{"_account_id":7805,"name":"Li Ma","email":"skywalker.nick@gmail.com","username":"Nick"},"change_message_id":"39cb9e1d4bfaf6d5a68372c27b88b013b449e836","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":755,"context_line":"            _topic, ip_addr \u003d queue"},{"line_number":756,"context_line":"            _addr \u003d \"tcp://%s:%s\" % (ip_addr, conf.rpc_zmq_port)"},{"line_number":757,"context_line":""},{"line_number":758,"context_line":"            res \u003d method(_addr, context, _topic, msg, timeout, envelope)"},{"line_number":759,"context_line":"        return res"},{"line_number":760,"context_line":""},{"line_number":761,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"AAAAXH%2F%2F%2FZo%3D","line":758,"in_reply_to":"AAAAW3%2F%2FRDc%3D","updated":"2014-04-16 02:06:36.000000000","message":"The method from zmq is returning the msg itself, not boolean value or something else. I think it is OK for the situation, because the returning values are the same. In order to be consistent with amqp interface, this multi-send method need to return only one message not list/tuple/set when using call.","commit_id":"e68b29dcf41c675c92902f403c53d3dea02559e9"}]}