)]}'
{"/PATCHSET_LEVEL":[{"author":{"_account_id":4690,"name":"melanie witt","display_name":"melwitt","email":"melwittt@gmail.com","username":"melwitt"},"change_message_id":"1c7f9a945e01718118902e7976570c79ecfabee1","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":3,"id":"56f7c4b2_a3fcde12","updated":"2022-02-03 02:39:41.000000000","message":"LGTM","commit_id":"396634e07cd7d7e07c27fdb43d06271713f4049a"},{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"fe7698792166b87f972db1da7b0a4e1f05da186b","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":3,"id":"a58434bd_79baf4de","updated":"2022-02-03 15:20:20.000000000","message":"we agreed to fix the repeated parmater bug seperately so for now we can assert the broken behavior and adress it when we come to an agreement about how to fix it.","commit_id":"396634e07cd7d7e07c27fdb43d06271713f4049a"}],"placement/tests/functional/gabbits/resource-provider-any-traits.yaml":[{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"d2d114820b9dbb417adf54b7fc8d9f524cd9180f","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"d748f665_5e4497d5","line":30,"updated":"2022-01-24 12:31:08.000000000","message":"there is perhaps a third varient we could test which is the alternitvia arrya syntax using []\n\n/resource_providers?required[]\u003dCUSTOM_FOO\u0026required[]\u003dHW_CPU_X86_MMX\n\nits less commonly used but its something that someone might try.\n\nin general i expect we sould treat this as a named group and then reject it as an invalid name but over all this looks good to me to assert the syntax we intend to use is not currently suppport and there is no use of repeated args for arrays compostion today","commit_id":"e6be27332726ac0a0bc02d62fdaa6501c6e48f37"},{"author":{"_account_id":9708,"name":"Balazs Gibizer","display_name":"gibi","email":"gibizer@gmail.com","username":"gibi"},"change_message_id":"8030d891812bad4b9d6008af061b7a3f74713ece","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"d3e8a6af_fedce121","line":30,"in_reply_to":"beaed1f1_c54250f6","updated":"2022-02-02 16:42:02.000000000","message":"I\u0027ve fixed the repeat bug separately https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/827115 but then the discussion turned around and now the fix is abandoned. Anyhow microversion 1.39 should be independent of the bug or any fix of that bug.","commit_id":"e6be27332726ac0a0bc02d62fdaa6501c6e48f37"},{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"34f61e571bf46abaaf6df7ffc9c0b927b0f4bfa7","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"beaed1f1_c54250f6","line":30,"in_reply_to":"d748f665_5e4497d5","updated":"2022-01-24 12:49:19.000000000","message":"actully after reviewing the next patch in the serieis i htink i have changed my mind if we can make this a 400 error in older microversion i think that is what we should be doing as we could have silent failures today if people use repated paramters. by silent failture i mean that the returned set of allocation candiate or resouce providers in this case do not match all the constratis that pepole expected. if we do not suppot multiple repeated paramaters i think its valid to return a 400 bad request in this case which i think we should be doing.\n\nthe question is can we do that without requireing a micro version bump.\n\nif not then this is unfortunately aely the best we can do (using the last arg) and i agree its good to have test coverage to ensure we do not regress that but i feel like we should also have a api docs update in that case to warn peopel about this behavior.\n\nso —1 is more to discuss if this should be a 400 and if not ask for a docs note.","commit_id":"e6be27332726ac0a0bc02d62fdaa6501c6e48f37"}]}