)]}'
{"placement/objects/allocation_candidate.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":11564,"name":"Chris Dent","email":"cdent@anticdent.org","username":"chdent"},"change_message_id":"bf826eb8e0ce6c4106a0af451da9218200f31d8b","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":211,"context_line":"        self.resource_provider \u003d resource_provider"},{"line_number":212,"context_line":"        self.resource_class \u003d resource_class"},{"line_number":213,"context_line":"        self.amount \u003d amount"},{"line_number":214,"context_line":"        self.suffixes \u003d suffixes or set()"},{"line_number":215,"context_line":""},{"line_number":216,"context_line":"    def __eq__(self, other):"},{"line_number":217,"context_line":"        return ((self.resource_provider.id \u003d\u003d other.resource_provider.id) and"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"9fb8cfa7_bb0663cd","line":214,"updated":"2019-06-29 19:48:20.000000000","message":"ugh, yeah, this is why it is annoying\n\nonce again we\u0027ve gone from a scalar to something more complex\n\nI agree this is probably the right fix, but it is smelly because we have a singular class (AR_Resource) which has a plural indicator of its contributors.\n\nThe more correct fix is probably to have more than one ARR in the cases that would case more than one suffiix.","commit_id":"bc84093f67d410f9e8b80e3e199287d5bc1316e7"},{"author":{"_account_id":14070,"name":"Eric Fried","email":"openstack@fried.cc","username":"efried"},"change_message_id":"af849474b603b277b2fbcd42d74710c4362da0ec","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":211,"context_line":"        self.resource_provider \u003d resource_provider"},{"line_number":212,"context_line":"        self.resource_class \u003d resource_class"},{"line_number":213,"context_line":"        self.amount \u003d amount"},{"line_number":214,"context_line":"        self.suffixes \u003d suffixes or set()"},{"line_number":215,"context_line":""},{"line_number":216,"context_line":"    def __eq__(self, other):"},{"line_number":217,"context_line":"        return ((self.resource_provider.id \u003d\u003d other.resource_provider.id) and"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"9fb8cfa7_fb9b7b6f","line":214,"in_reply_to":"9fb8cfa7_bb0663cd","updated":"2019-06-29 20:56:26.000000000","message":"Well, that\u0027s where we are before calling _consolidate_allocation_requests, whose whole job is to combine them so we sum up their amounts.","commit_id":"bc84093f67d410f9e8b80e3e199287d5bc1316e7"},{"author":{"_account_id":11564,"name":"Chris Dent","email":"cdent@anticdent.org","username":"chdent"},"change_message_id":"7b11b5b03eadb998e6ab54fb68e2a43b0ba910cc","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":211,"context_line":"        self.resource_provider \u003d resource_provider"},{"line_number":212,"context_line":"        self.resource_class \u003d resource_class"},{"line_number":213,"context_line":"        self.amount \u003d amount"},{"line_number":214,"context_line":"        self.suffixes \u003d suffixes or set()"},{"line_number":215,"context_line":""},{"line_number":216,"context_line":"    def __eq__(self, other):"},{"line_number":217,"context_line":"        return ((self.resource_provider.id \u003d\u003d other.resource_provider.id) and"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"9fb8cfa7_4d067f1e","line":214,"in_reply_to":"9fb8cfa7_fb9b7b6f","updated":"2019-07-01 16:26:27.000000000","message":"\u003e Well, that\u0027s where we are before calling _consolidate_allocation_requests,\n \u003e whose whole job is to combine them so we sum up their amounts.\n\nI misread this the first time through in way that made it seem like you were saying my description of the state of things before consolidate was wrong, but what you\u0027re actually saying is \"you\u0027re right, up until _consolidate\".\n\nThis continues to support my growing concern (as started in reviewing tetsuro\u0027s work) that we are overloading the AllocationRequest and AllocationRequestResource in a messy way.\n\nSuffix on AR would probably make more sense and ease some of the concerns (\u0027mappings\u0027 _is_ a relevant thing for the eventually output allocation request). I\u0027ll think on it.","commit_id":"bc84093f67d410f9e8b80e3e199287d5bc1316e7"},{"author":{"_account_id":14070,"name":"Eric Fried","email":"openstack@fried.cc","username":"efried"},"change_message_id":"4f8e27fda8c3cfff833c4fa61d35ebf0a91d9239","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":211,"context_line":"        self.resource_provider \u003d resource_provider"},{"line_number":212,"context_line":"        self.resource_class \u003d resource_class"},{"line_number":213,"context_line":"        self.amount \u003d amount"},{"line_number":214,"context_line":"        self.suffixes \u003d suffixes or set()"},{"line_number":215,"context_line":""},{"line_number":216,"context_line":"    def __eq__(self, other):"},{"line_number":217,"context_line":"        return ((self.resource_provider.id \u003d\u003d other.resource_provider.id) and"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"9fb8cfa7_1bec4fb9","line":214,"in_reply_to":"9fb8cfa7_fb9b7b6f","updated":"2019-06-29 22:22:47.000000000","message":"What would make the most sense architecturally I suppose would be to store the mappings in the AllocationRequest instead. That would be a nontrivial rework, perhaps. Maybe we can throw it on top with the other two alternates :p","commit_id":"bc84093f67d410f9e8b80e3e199287d5bc1316e7"},{"author":{"_account_id":14070,"name":"Eric Fried","email":"openstack@fried.cc","username":"efried"},"change_message_id":"af849474b603b277b2fbcd42d74710c4362da0ec","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":231,"context_line":"            resource_class\u003dself.resource_class,"},{"line_number":232,"context_line":"            amount\u003dself.amount,"},{"line_number":233,"context_line":"            # Avoid reusing the same suffixes across copies. This is necessary"},{"line_number":234,"context_line":"            # for (at least) _consolidate_allocation_requests."},{"line_number":235,"context_line":"            suffixes\u003dcopy.copy(self.suffixes))"},{"line_number":236,"context_line":""},{"line_number":237,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":2,"id":"9fb8cfa7_5b916751","line":234,"updated":"2019-06-29 20:56:26.000000000","message":"Note to reviewers: I didn\u0027t like this very much, so I proposed a couple of different alternatives [1][2]. Pick your favorite.\n\n[1] https://review.opendev.org/668309\n[2] https://review.opendev.org/668310","commit_id":"71da565ec0cdebd285d31b35a4fd775846278a6a"},{"author":{"_account_id":11564,"name":"Chris Dent","email":"cdent@anticdent.org","username":"chdent"},"change_message_id":"7b11b5b03eadb998e6ab54fb68e2a43b0ba910cc","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":231,"context_line":"            resource_class\u003dself.resource_class,"},{"line_number":232,"context_line":"            amount\u003dself.amount,"},{"line_number":233,"context_line":"            # Avoid reusing the same suffixes across copies. This is necessary"},{"line_number":234,"context_line":"            # for (at least) _consolidate_allocation_requests."},{"line_number":235,"context_line":"            suffixes\u003dcopy.copy(self.suffixes))"},{"line_number":236,"context_line":""},{"line_number":237,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":2,"id":"9fb8cfa7_6da58302","line":234,"in_reply_to":"9fb8cfa7_5b916751","updated":"2019-07-01 16:26:27.000000000","message":"yeah, one of those other options would be better, will think harder when I look at them more closely","commit_id":"71da565ec0cdebd285d31b35a4fd775846278a6a"}]}