)]}'
{"manifests/vncproxy/common.pp":[{"author":{"_account_id":14985,"name":"Alex Schultz","email":"aschultz@next-development.com","username":"mwhahaha"},"change_message_id":"9ace6376e7caf50f14043727aa2262221113a439","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":25,"context_line":""},{"line_number":26,"context_line":"  include ::nova::deps"},{"line_number":27,"context_line":""},{"line_number":28,"context_line":"  if defined(\u0027::nova::compute\u0027) and defined(\u0027::nova::vncproxy\u0027) {"},{"line_number":29,"context_line":"    $vncproxy_host_real     \u003d pick("},{"line_number":30,"context_line":"      $vncproxy_host,"},{"line_number":31,"context_line":"      $::nova::compute::vncproxy_host,"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-puppet","patch_set":3,"id":"3a7e1126_156141d3","line":28,"updated":"2015-12-18 19:58:18.000000000","message":"This if/else block makes my head hurt.  Is ::nova::vncproxy able to be included to prevent the warnings?","commit_id":"919badca0bc4605fa8fe547f499d76d42f46403c"},{"author":{"_account_id":17275,"name":"Nate Potter","email":"nathaniel.potter@intel.com","username":"npotter"},"change_message_id":"a4ee6dd675ca6acf5b60fc352cbaafc45a33f863","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":25,"context_line":""},{"line_number":26,"context_line":"  include ::nova::deps"},{"line_number":27,"context_line":""},{"line_number":28,"context_line":"  if defined(\u0027::nova::compute\u0027) and defined(\u0027::nova::vncproxy\u0027) {"},{"line_number":29,"context_line":"    $vncproxy_host_real     \u003d pick("},{"line_number":30,"context_line":"      $vncproxy_host,"},{"line_number":31,"context_line":"      $::nova::compute::vncproxy_host,"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-puppet","patch_set":3,"id":"3a7e1126_55c7c995","line":28,"in_reply_to":"3a7e1126_156141d3","updated":"2015-12-18 20:03:42.000000000","message":"I agree, a more elegant solution would definitely be nice. The problem is both nova::compute and nova::vncproxy include this class, and they can both be declared independently so I don\u0027t see a way to guarantee that both will be defined when this class is being evaluated. Do you know of a better way?","commit_id":"919badca0bc4605fa8fe547f499d76d42f46403c"},{"author":{"_account_id":14985,"name":"Alex Schultz","email":"aschultz@next-development.com","username":"mwhahaha"},"change_message_id":"f3c60c3f66682e333e7b782313e060a4bf4c24dc","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":25,"context_line":""},{"line_number":26,"context_line":"  include ::nova::deps"},{"line_number":27,"context_line":""},{"line_number":28,"context_line":"  if defined(\u0027::nova::compute\u0027) and defined(\u0027::nova::vncproxy\u0027) {"},{"line_number":29,"context_line":"    $vncproxy_host_real     \u003d pick("},{"line_number":30,"context_line":"      $vncproxy_host,"},{"line_number":31,"context_line":"      $::nova::compute::vncproxy_host,"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-puppet","patch_set":3,"id":"3a7e1126_0ccd8584","line":28,"in_reply_to":"3a7e1126_55c7c995","updated":"2015-12-21 15:05:00.000000000","message":"After thinking about it for a while, I\u0027m not really sure there\u0027s a good way to do this since two different setups share the same configuration. I\u0027m not sure if removing the warning is worth this block of code.","commit_id":"919badca0bc4605fa8fe547f499d76d42f46403c"}]}