)]}'
{"doc/source/overview_encryption.rst":[{"author":{"_account_id":4608,"name":"Kota Tsuyuzaki","email":"bloodeagle40234@gmail.com","username":"tsuyuzaki-kota"},"change_message_id":"c9f29c6945bab28a619d860fe8ee6f0173e80e9f","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":103,"context_line":"    object ring."},{"line_number":104,"context_line":""},{"line_number":105,"context_line":"    Once deployed, changing the ``encryption_root_secret`` value is likely to"},{"line_number":106,"context_line":"    result in data loss."},{"line_number":107,"context_line":""},{"line_number":108,"context_line":"One method for generating a suitable value for ``encryption_root_secret`` is to"},{"line_number":109,"context_line":"use the ``openssl`` command line tool::"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"1aa78d24_dc34e2df","line":106,"updated":"2016-07-04 04:20:06.000000000","message":"Yup, this is an important message for operators. Nice.","commit_id":"67fb37db223a4b9d5aa58ab18ebf29cf5a7951de"},{"author":{"_account_id":7847,"name":"Alistair Coles","email":"alistairncoles@gmail.com","username":"acoles"},"change_message_id":"16d851bf17ea76d3ee109c3403b4087d9984a863","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":103,"context_line":"    object ring."},{"line_number":104,"context_line":""},{"line_number":105,"context_line":"    Once deployed, changing the ``encryption_root_secret`` value is likely to"},{"line_number":106,"context_line":"    result in data loss."},{"line_number":107,"context_line":""},{"line_number":108,"context_line":"One method for generating a suitable value for ``encryption_root_secret`` is to"},{"line_number":109,"context_line":"use the ``openssl`` command line tool::"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"1aa78d24_379221a0","line":106,"in_reply_to":"1aa78d24_dc34e2df","updated":"2016-07-05 11:47:25.000000000","message":"I was surprised this had not made it into the doc!","commit_id":"67fb37db223a4b9d5aa58ab18ebf29cf5a7951de"},{"author":{"_account_id":12279,"name":"Janie Richling","email":"jrichli@us.ibm.com","username":"jrichli"},"change_message_id":"d1caf77ce645f9adcf3f4ca225187a7279a6c218","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":103,"context_line":"    object ring."},{"line_number":104,"context_line":""},{"line_number":105,"context_line":"    Once deployed, changing the ``encryption_root_secret`` value is likely to"},{"line_number":106,"context_line":"    result in data loss."},{"line_number":107,"context_line":""},{"line_number":108,"context_line":"One method for generating a suitable value for ``encryption_root_secret`` is to"},{"line_number":109,"context_line":"use the ``openssl`` command line tool::"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":2,"id":"1aa78d24_d2e6dde6","line":106,"updated":"2016-07-07 04:01:10.000000000","message":"This statement is a little soft.  Is there a reason we are not saying \"will result in data loss\"?  Or maybe say it will prevent swift from being able to decrypt the data.  This sounds like there is some chance that things will be ok.","commit_id":"a8911a3a8bd2c3c7ab0eeb41dc53167abd5d3059"},{"author":{"_account_id":12279,"name":"Janie Richling","email":"jrichli@us.ibm.com","username":"jrichli"},"change_message_id":"8f830c66902549630dc6344d12f858a07b7f7187","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":103,"context_line":"    object ring."},{"line_number":104,"context_line":""},{"line_number":105,"context_line":"    Once deployed, changing the ``encryption_root_secret`` value is likely to"},{"line_number":106,"context_line":"    result in data loss."},{"line_number":107,"context_line":""},{"line_number":108,"context_line":"One method for generating a suitable value for ``encryption_root_secret`` is to"},{"line_number":109,"context_line":"use the ``openssl`` command line tool::"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":2,"id":"1aa78d24_914d3c9c","line":106,"in_reply_to":"1aa78d24_51b5942f","updated":"2016-07-07 21:38:47.000000000","message":"Yes, I thought of the cases where there just wasn\u0027t any data using the old value.  I prefer to focus on the case where there is data to lose, or else its a degenerate case.  I didn\u0027t think about the flag.\n\nI like the suggested words.  The consequences are clear.","commit_id":"a8911a3a8bd2c3c7ab0eeb41dc53167abd5d3059"},{"author":{"_account_id":7847,"name":"Alistair Coles","email":"alistairncoles@gmail.com","username":"acoles"},"change_message_id":"64e1748d7ff6d69cbd4116b5cd0c89ca862f754e","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":103,"context_line":"    object ring."},{"line_number":104,"context_line":""},{"line_number":105,"context_line":"    Once deployed, changing the ``encryption_root_secret`` value is likely to"},{"line_number":106,"context_line":"    result in data loss."},{"line_number":107,"context_line":""},{"line_number":108,"context_line":"One method for generating a suitable value for ``encryption_root_secret`` is to"},{"line_number":109,"context_line":"use the ``openssl`` command line tool::"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":2,"id":"1aa78d24_da750233","line":106,"in_reply_to":"1aa78d24_914d3c9c","updated":"2016-07-08 10:55:36.000000000","message":"It was \"soft\" for the reasons you identified i.e. you may not lose data, so it would be wrong to state categorically that you would.\n\nI\u0027ll take Tim\u0027s suggestion (thanks!) - it somewhat repeats the previous paragraph but no harm in emphasizng the point. I may beef it up to say \"do not do this\".","commit_id":"a8911a3a8bd2c3c7ab0eeb41dc53167abd5d3059"},{"author":{"_account_id":15343,"name":"Tim Burke","email":"tburke@nvidia.com","username":"tburke"},"change_message_id":"76aa50e8e25c4ce71d3446f6b6333d94ed01fc9e","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":103,"context_line":"    object ring."},{"line_number":104,"context_line":""},{"line_number":105,"context_line":"    Once deployed, changing the ``encryption_root_secret`` value is likely to"},{"line_number":106,"context_line":"    result in data loss."},{"line_number":107,"context_line":""},{"line_number":108,"context_line":"One method for generating a suitable value for ``encryption_root_secret`` is to"},{"line_number":109,"context_line":"use the ``openssl`` command line tool::"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":2,"id":"1aa78d24_51b5942f","line":106,"in_reply_to":"1aa78d24_d2e6dde6","updated":"2016-07-07 21:27:21.000000000","message":"Maybe\n\n\u003e Once deployed, changing the ``encryption_root_secret`` value will prevent Swift from properly decrypting data that was encrypted using the former value. As a result, doing so will very likely result in data loss.\n\n? I kinda understand why this was soft originally, though; there are a variety of circumstances under which this *won\u0027t* result in data loss, whether that\u0027s because you were always running with encryption_enabled\u003dFalse, or you know there were no PUTs while encryption was enabled, or you know that all of the objects that *were* PUT were subsequently DELETEd, or....","commit_id":"a8911a3a8bd2c3c7ab0eeb41dc53167abd5d3059"}],"test/unit/common/middleware/crypto/test_crypto.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":15343,"name":"Tim Burke","email":"tburke@nvidia.com","username":"tburke"},"change_message_id":"b40268e8e5c862232a8787f6d18258c805cf626d","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":28,"context_line":"            self.assertIsInstance(filtered_app, crypto.decrypter.Decrypter)"},{"line_number":29,"context_line":"            self.assertIsInstance(filtered_app.app, crypto.encrypter.Encrypter)"},{"line_number":30,"context_line":"            self.assertIs(filtered_app.app.app, fake_app)"},{"line_number":31,"context_line":"            self.assertIn(\u0027encryption\u0027, utils._swift_admin_info)"},{"line_number":32,"context_line":"            self.assertNotIn(\u0027encryption\u0027, utils._swift_info)"},{"line_number":33,"context_line":""},{"line_number":34,"context_line":"        do_test({})"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"3aaa91ec_8215e3e6","line":31,"updated":"2016-07-01 17:14:26.000000000","message":"So... I was going to propose something similar as a separate patch, but as I got into it, I realized I\u0027m not sure this works the way we want it to. utils._swift_*info is mutated between runs, allowing insertions to bleed over. You can verify this by adding a\n\n self.assertNotIn(\u0027encryption\u0027, utils._swift_admin_info)\n\nat the top. I came up with http://paste.openstack.org/show/524653/ but maybe it\u0027d be better to just mock out register_swift_info?","commit_id":"67fb37db223a4b9d5aa58ab18ebf29cf5a7951de"},{"author":{"_account_id":4608,"name":"Kota Tsuyuzaki","email":"bloodeagle40234@gmail.com","username":"tsuyuzaki-kota"},"change_message_id":"c9f29c6945bab28a619d860fe8ee6f0173e80e9f","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":28,"context_line":"            self.assertIsInstance(filtered_app, crypto.decrypter.Decrypter)"},{"line_number":29,"context_line":"            self.assertIsInstance(filtered_app.app, crypto.encrypter.Encrypter)"},{"line_number":30,"context_line":"            self.assertIs(filtered_app.app.app, fake_app)"},{"line_number":31,"context_line":"            self.assertIn(\u0027encryption\u0027, utils._swift_admin_info)"},{"line_number":32,"context_line":"            self.assertNotIn(\u0027encryption\u0027, utils._swift_info)"},{"line_number":33,"context_line":""},{"line_number":34,"context_line":"        do_test({})"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"1aa78d24_3ccfe6b1","line":31,"in_reply_to":"3aaa91ec_8215e3e6","updated":"2016-07-04 04:20:06.000000000","message":"+1, Tim\u0027s suggestion looks good to me.\n\ntest_filter_factory_disabled and test_filter_factory_explicitly_enabled seem to be needed one moer assetion, self.assertTrue(callable(factory)) hopefully, as well as test_filter_factory_default though.","commit_id":"67fb37db223a4b9d5aa58ab18ebf29cf5a7951de"},{"author":{"_account_id":4608,"name":"Kota Tsuyuzaki","email":"bloodeagle40234@gmail.com","username":"tsuyuzaki-kota"},"change_message_id":"c9f29c6945bab28a619d860fe8ee6f0173e80e9f","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":33,"context_line":""},{"line_number":34,"context_line":"        do_test({})"},{"line_number":35,"context_line":"        self.assertDictEqual({\u0027enabled\u0027: True},"},{"line_number":36,"context_line":"                             utils._swift_admin_info[\u0027encryption\u0027])"},{"line_number":37,"context_line":""},{"line_number":38,"context_line":"        do_test({\u0027disable_encryption\u0027: False})"},{"line_number":39,"context_line":"        self.assertDictEqual({\u0027enabled\u0027: True},"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"1aa78d24_1ce94a1b","line":36,"updated":"2016-07-04 04:20:06.000000000","message":"Ah...Yes, the default with no values is enabled but I\u0027d like to change this to False in default to address the upgrading scenario like. Probably I could make a patch for that as following this patch.","commit_id":"67fb37db223a4b9d5aa58ab18ebf29cf5a7951de"}]}