)]}'
{"/COMMIT_MSG":[{"author":{"_account_id":23186,"name":"Felipe Monteiro","email":"felipe.carneiro.monteiro@gmail.com","username":"felipe.monteiro"},"change_message_id":"8fa24e96d0cbb91a67e5e4c837147d82d9c9315c","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":43,"context_line":"implemented."},{"line_number":44,"context_line":""},{"line_number":45,"context_line":"At a later time, a more robust approach that balances backwards"},{"line_number":46,"context_line":"compatibility concerns with false positive backwards may be"},{"line_number":47,"context_line":"designed and implemented."},{"line_number":48,"context_line":""},{"line_number":49,"context_line":"Change-Id: I7f7eda39c0472bd3d70892c801fc4d14db0c0426"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":1,"id":"df7087c5_3d617baa","line":46,"range":{"start_line":46,"start_character":43,"end_line":46,"end_character":52},"updated":"2018-03-11 11:32:02.000000000","message":"concerns","commit_id":"f5286cc61777f8cb2a823fad75476afb34e6c875"},{"author":{"_account_id":8556,"name":"Ghanshyam Maan","display_name":"Ghanshyam Maan","email":"gmaan.os14@gmail.com","username":"ghanshyam"},"change_message_id":"9ec9774c667c29c39698cc80c3627180d194f0ee","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":11,"context_line":"option could be set to False in order to skip tests which"},{"line_number":12,"context_line":"might result in false positives."},{"line_number":13,"context_line":""},{"line_number":14,"context_line":"However, during the Rocky PTG, it was determined that this also"},{"line_number":15,"context_line":"breaks backwards compatibility. For example, if Cinder policy"},{"line_number":16,"context_line":"\"foo\" in Pike is renamed to \"bar\" in Queens, then if Patrole"},{"line_number":17,"context_line":"fails on the test that checks for \"bar\" in a Pike cloud, then this"},{"line_number":18,"context_line":"is a spurious failure: the test failed because there is no"},{"line_number":19,"context_line":"stable deprecation phase for policies in OpenStack, not because"},{"line_number":20,"context_line":"the policy or the test are necessarily invalid."},{"line_number":21,"context_line":""},{"line_number":22,"context_line":"As a compromise, a LOG.warning is emitted and the test is skipped"},{"line_number":23,"context_line":"if the policy could not be found, which is required to calculate"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":2,"id":"df7087c5_fa13f3b6","line":20,"range":{"start_line":14,"start_character":0,"end_line":20,"end_character":47},"updated":"2018-03-22 03:34:12.000000000","message":"So this is the real issue here. i do not think policy change without deprecation phase can be done. \n\n\u003e\"there is no stable deprecation phase for policies in \u003eOpenStack,\"\nNot sure what you mean here, i think it is project API contract that they should not break any operator by changing policy in backward compatible way. \nIn nova, we maintain the policy compatibility same as config options which means no policy change (rename, delete, change in default values) can be done without deprecation phase. Deprecation phase is 6 month like it is for config options.\n \nDo we have some written doc for config options deprecation phase ? if so that can help us to do the same for policy. \n\nis Cinder or any other projects said NO to above rule/policy ?","commit_id":"1c444da564701bc5c1d92c5f00f558244a83f991"}],"patrole_tempest_plugin/rbac_rule_validation.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":23186,"name":"Felipe Monteiro","email":"felipe.carneiro.monteiro@gmail.com","username":"felipe.monteiro"},"change_message_id":"4c6cdf90551f967c9bb713e7ccaedc4e1bf62fc1","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":209,"context_line":""},{"line_number":210,"context_line":"    :raises RbacResourceSetupFailed: If `project_id` or `user_id` are missing"},{"line_number":211,"context_line":"        from the `auth_provider` attribute in `test_obj`."},{"line_number":212,"context_line":"    :raises skipException: If the ``rule`` does not exist in the system. THis"},{"line_number":213,"context_line":"        is intended to maintain backwards compatibility. If a policy in the"},{"line_number":214,"context_line":"        cloud has been removed in a later release, Patrole skips the test."},{"line_number":215,"context_line":"    \"\"\""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"df7087c5_ddd87f80","line":212,"range":{"start_line":212,"start_character":73,"end_line":212,"end_character":77},"updated":"2018-03-11 11:29:53.000000000","message":"This","commit_id":"f5286cc61777f8cb2a823fad75476afb34e6c875"},{"author":{"_account_id":8556,"name":"Ghanshyam Maan","display_name":"Ghanshyam Maan","email":"gmaan.os14@gmail.com","username":"ghanshyam"},"change_message_id":"9ec9774c667c29c39698cc80c3627180d194f0ee","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":199,"context_line":""},{"line_number":200,"context_line":"    :raises RbacResourceSetupFailed: If `project_id` or `user_id` are missing"},{"line_number":201,"context_line":"        from the `auth_provider` attribute in `test_obj`."},{"line_number":202,"context_line":"    :raises skipException: If the ``rule`` does not exist in the system. This"},{"line_number":203,"context_line":"        is intended to maintain backwards compatibility. If a policy in the"},{"line_number":204,"context_line":"        cloud has been removed in a later release, Patrole skips the test."},{"line_number":205,"context_line":"    \"\"\""},{"line_number":206,"context_line":""},{"line_number":207,"context_line":"    try:"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":2,"id":"df7087c5_da5e2f75","line":204,"range":{"start_line":202,"start_character":0,"end_line":204,"end_character":74},"updated":"2018-03-22 03:34:12.000000000","message":"if we do this then, we will not be able to tests \"policy working fine now also as it was when operator used last time/cycle\".\n\nI feel that, policy cannot be changed in backward incompatible way and that\u0027s the whole point of testing those via patrole.  \n\nEach projects should maintain the deprecation phase for that and in that duration patrole will move to new policy  changes. \n\nIf no deprecation phase then we cannot test RBAC across stable branches.","commit_id":"1c444da564701bc5c1d92c5f00f558244a83f991"}],"releasenotes/notes/remove-strict-policy-check-480e3d664f7b2d96.yaml":[{"author":{"_account_id":23186,"name":"Felipe Monteiro","email":"felipe.carneiro.monteiro@gmail.com","username":"felipe.monteiro"},"change_message_id":"4c6cdf90551f967c9bb713e7ccaedc4e1bf62fc1","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":6,"context_line":"    compatibility, if Patrole cannot find a policy action referenced by"},{"line_number":7,"context_line":"    an RBAC test, the test is skipped. Otherwise, spurious failures"},{"line_number":8,"context_line":"    might result from renamed or removed policy actions that existed in"},{"line_number":9,"context_line":"    previosu releases."}],"source_content_type":"text/x-yaml","patch_set":1,"id":"df7087c5_9dbbe70c","line":9,"range":{"start_line":9,"start_character":4,"end_line":9,"end_character":12},"updated":"2018-03-11 11:29:53.000000000","message":"previous","commit_id":"f5286cc61777f8cb2a823fad75476afb34e6c875"}]}