)]}'
{"test/unit/common/middleware/test_encrypter.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":12279,"name":"Janie Richling","email":"jrichli@us.ibm.com","username":"jrichli"},"change_message_id":"fb17dd543e431e1dcb60492c2d455b2c64fecdc0","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":432,"context_line":"        other_footers \u003d {"},{"line_number":433,"context_line":"            \u0027Etag\u0027: \u0027other etag\u0027,"},{"line_number":434,"context_line":"            \u0027X-Object-Sysmeta-Other\u0027: \u0027other sysmeta\u0027,"},{"line_number":435,"context_line":"            \u0027X-Backend-Container-Update-Override-Etag\u0027: \u0027other override\u0027}"},{"line_number":436,"context_line":"        env.update({\u0027swift.callback.update_footers\u0027:"},{"line_number":437,"context_line":"                    lambda footers: footers.update(other_footers)})"},{"line_number":438,"context_line":"        req \u003d Request.blank(\u0027/v1/a/c/o\u0027, environ\u003denv, body\u003d\u0027\u0027, headers\u003dhdrs)"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":2,"id":"7aa08908_e87a33f0","line":435,"updated":"2016-06-08 03:52:09.000000000","message":"Only new code will have \u0027footers\u0027, and so the backend value will never be used for the override etag.  If you change this to use \u0027X-Object-Sysmeta-Container-Update-Override-Etag\u0027, then this value will be encrypted.  when talking about this in IRC, you had mentioned making a case for EMPTY_ETAG.  But that is not what this test uses, and I wonder if we can assume that would be the override etag necessarily in this nothing read, but has etag override, test case.\n\nWe could change this test to both use the sysmeta override and to expect that to get encrypted, or we can change the behavior in this particular case: but I am not sure at this point how valid this case is and what the etag should/could be in such a situation.","commit_id":"343d81673c24d41334c3d9d258a72abcd7923b16"}]}