)]}'
{"rally/plugins/openstack/scenarios/authenticate/authenticate.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":12395,"name":"Roman Vasylets","email":"pomeo92@gmail.com","username":"rvasilets"},"change_message_id":"b6a398bae0ed6fc02142ccb137b960e52de6192f","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":21,"context_line":"@validation.required_openstack(users\u003dTrue)"},{"line_number":22,"context_line":"@scenario.configure(name\u003d\"Authenticate.keystone\")"},{"line_number":23,"context_line":"class Keystone(scenario.OpenStackScenario):"},{"line_number":24,"context_line":"    \"\"\"Benchmark scenarios for Keystone client.\"\"\""},{"line_number":25,"context_line":""},{"line_number":26,"context_line":"    @atomic.action_timer(\"authenticate.keystone\")"},{"line_number":27,"context_line":"    def run(self):"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":2,"id":"fa7ab95a_8f04f37e","line":24,"updated":"2016-08-26 14:03:24.000000000","message":"I guess this docstring is wrong. There is no plural here. I suggest to change such docstrings to \"\"\" Scenario for \u003crelevant name to an old class\u003e\"\"\" Here \u003crelevant name to an old class\u003e is Neutron network Also as I remember we try to avoid the word benchmark.","commit_id":"8ff501f4b40419a03a58e4319b276ee8edd6733a"},{"author":{"_account_id":10475,"name":"Alexander Maretskiy","email":"amaretskiy@mirantis.com","username":"maretskiy"},"change_message_id":"81c4ef59524637b7b35df6fc5237485d8ce00a7f","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":32,"context_line":"@validation.number(\"repetitions\", minval\u003d1)"},{"line_number":33,"context_line":"@validation.required_openstack(users\u003dTrue)"},{"line_number":34,"context_line":"@scenario.configure(name\u003d\"Authenticate.validate_glance\")"},{"line_number":35,"context_line":"class ValidateGlance(scenario.OpenStackScenario):"},{"line_number":36,"context_line":"    \"\"\"Benchmark scenarios for Glance client.\"\"\""},{"line_number":37,"context_line":"    def run(self, repetitions):"},{"line_number":38,"context_line":"        \"\"\"Check Glance Client to ensure validation of token."}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":2,"id":"1ac06dbe_d25ac829","line":35,"updated":"2016-08-22 07:32:51.000000000","message":"I would recommend to think about \"GlanceAuth\" name.\nWord \"Validate\" looks not good for class name, this is a legacy of method name\n\nSame naming \"\u003c*\u003eAuth\" is proposed for other authentication scenarios below\n\nI would like to discuss this idea with other cores","commit_id":"8ff501f4b40419a03a58e4319b276ee8edd6733a"},{"author":{"_account_id":12395,"name":"Roman Vasylets","email":"pomeo92@gmail.com","username":"rvasilets"},"change_message_id":"b6a398bae0ed6fc02142ccb137b960e52de6192f","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":32,"context_line":"@validation.number(\"repetitions\", minval\u003d1)"},{"line_number":33,"context_line":"@validation.required_openstack(users\u003dTrue)"},{"line_number":34,"context_line":"@scenario.configure(name\u003d\"Authenticate.validate_glance\")"},{"line_number":35,"context_line":"class ValidateGlance(scenario.OpenStackScenario):"},{"line_number":36,"context_line":"    \"\"\"Benchmark scenarios for Glance client.\"\"\""},{"line_number":37,"context_line":"    def run(self, repetitions):"},{"line_number":38,"context_line":"        \"\"\"Check Glance Client to ensure validation of token."}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":2,"id":"fa7ab95a_efd65fc4","line":35,"in_reply_to":"1ac06dbe_d25ac829","updated":"2016-08-26 14:03:24.000000000","message":"I like the name of the class  because I don\u0027t see any side effect and this fits into our naming pattern","commit_id":"8ff501f4b40419a03a58e4319b276ee8edd6733a"},{"author":{"_account_id":12395,"name":"Roman Vasylets","email":"pomeo92@gmail.com","username":"rvasilets"},"change_message_id":"aa1781ef653805ca9270e1ba108f0268d6f0bb04","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":18,"context_line":"from rally.task import validation"},{"line_number":19,"context_line":""},{"line_number":20,"context_line":""},{"line_number":21,"context_line":"\"\"\"Scenarios for Keystone client.\"\"\""},{"line_number":22,"context_line":""},{"line_number":23,"context_line":""},{"line_number":24,"context_line":"@validation.required_openstack(users\u003dTrue)"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":5,"id":"7a8ec9b2_806432b9","line":21,"updated":"2016-09-16 19:18:24.000000000","message":"its not.\nScenarios for the authentication mechanism","commit_id":"c6b900ad9b2fb1776e49321ae48163a7686c3ec9"},{"author":{"_account_id":12395,"name":"Roman Vasylets","email":"pomeo92@gmail.com","username":"rvasilets"},"change_message_id":"0691e4fdaae4ab04bba46fed4c4dc66e158afbb4","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":18,"context_line":"from rally.task import validation"},{"line_number":19,"context_line":""},{"line_number":20,"context_line":""},{"line_number":21,"context_line":"\"\"\"Scenarios for Authentification mechanism.\"\"\""},{"line_number":22,"context_line":""},{"line_number":23,"context_line":""},{"line_number":24,"context_line":"@validation.required_openstack(users\u003dTrue)"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":6,"id":"7a8ec9b2_6347944b","line":21,"range":{"start_line":21,"start_character":17,"end_line":21,"end_character":33},"updated":"2016-09-20 21:41:12.000000000","message":"typo - Authentication","commit_id":"5f11112828262bd0ddcc6eed6eab8c396aa9b366"}],"tests/unit/plugins/openstack/scenarios/designate/test_basic.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":12395,"name":"Roman Vasylets","email":"pomeo92@gmail.com","username":"rvasilets"},"change_message_id":"0691e4fdaae4ab04bba46fed4c4dc66e158afbb4","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":27,"context_line":"    @mock.patch(\"%s.CreateAndListDomains._list_domains\" % BASE)"},{"line_number":28,"context_line":"    @mock.patch(\"%s.CreateAndListDomains._create_domain\" % BASE)"},{"line_number":29,"context_line":"    def test_create_and_list_domains(self,"},{"line_number":30,"context_line":"                                     mock_create_domain,"},{"line_number":31,"context_line":"                                     mock_list_domains):"},{"line_number":32,"context_line":"        basic.CreateAndListDomains(self.context).run()"},{"line_number":33,"context_line":"        mock_create_domain.assert_called_once_with()"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":6,"id":"7a8ec9b2_83e9001d","line":30,"updated":"2016-09-20 21:41:12.000000000","message":"mock__create_domain\nuse this approach in the file. mock_*","commit_id":"5f11112828262bd0ddcc6eed6eab8c396aa9b366"},{"author":{"_account_id":12395,"name":"Roman Vasylets","email":"pomeo92@gmail.com","username":"rvasilets"},"change_message_id":"556f2eed114881d89d3343ac8e61f3ffbba86222","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":105,"context_line":"        mock__create_domain.assert_called_once_with()"},{"line_number":106,"context_line":"        self.assertEqual(mock__create_record.mock_calls,"},{"line_number":107,"context_line":"                         [mock.call(domain, atomic_action\u003dFalse)]"},{"line_number":108,"context_line":"                         * records_per_domain)"},{"line_number":109,"context_line":"        self.assertEqual(mock__delete_record.mock_calls,"},{"line_number":110,"context_line":"                         [mock.call(domain[\"id\"],"},{"line_number":111,"context_line":"                                    \"321\","}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":7,"id":"3a98d1f4_a5003d03","line":108,"updated":"2016-10-03 22:06:45.000000000","message":"In this patch many occurrences of wrong order of assertEqual parameters. But this is another story...)","commit_id":"c90d87aecee4ec850c7e99fdace6b0d0a36f4306"}]}