)]}'
{"/COMMIT_MSG":[{"author":{"_account_id":15343,"name":"Tim Burke","email":"tburke@nvidia.com","username":"tburke"},"change_message_id":"2243f1cf2a4e6a6113751f382358b4c50b6355ea","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":10,"context_line":"with the response to a multipart manifest PUT.  When the request has"},{"line_number":11,"context_line":"heartbeat\u003don, include the manifest etag in the body of the response."},{"line_number":12,"context_line":""},{"line_number":13,"context_line":"If you want to create a \"static\" symlink to an SLO manifest by sending"},{"line_number":14,"context_line":"an \"X-Symlink-Target-Etag: \u003cetag\u003e\" header then the value of \u003cetag\u003e"},{"line_number":15,"context_line":"must be the manifest etag rather than the large object etag. However,"},{"line_number":16,"context_line":"the manifest etag was not previously included in the response to an"},{"line_number":17,"context_line":"SLO manifest PUT request."},{"line_number":18,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":6,"id":"2da52d4a_d8943451","line":15,"range":{"start_line":13,"start_character":0,"end_line":15,"end_character":60},"updated":"2024-09-11 19:52:32.000000000","message":"This sounds like a bug... I guess it was something needed to make versioning work? Or... some artifact of pipeline ordering? How strongly do we feel about preserving this behavior?","commit_id":"08d1298af4bb5ab0a24518fa5ce0de20ada2987e"},{"author":{"_account_id":7847,"name":"Alistair Coles","email":"alistairncoles@gmail.com","username":"acoles"},"change_message_id":"b16924db6292bb90e26881264de89cc349311885","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":10,"context_line":"with the response to a multipart manifest PUT.  When the request has"},{"line_number":11,"context_line":"heartbeat\u003don, include the manifest etag in the body of the response."},{"line_number":12,"context_line":""},{"line_number":13,"context_line":"If you want to create a \"static\" symlink to an SLO manifest by sending"},{"line_number":14,"context_line":"an \"X-Symlink-Target-Etag: \u003cetag\u003e\" header then the value of \u003cetag\u003e"},{"line_number":15,"context_line":"must be the manifest etag rather than the large object etag. However,"},{"line_number":16,"context_line":"the manifest etag was not previously included in the response to an"},{"line_number":17,"context_line":"SLO manifest PUT request."},{"line_number":18,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":6,"id":"11fe81ed_4355c8a3","line":15,"range":{"start_line":13,"start_character":0,"end_line":15,"end_character":60},"in_reply_to":"2da52d4a_d8943451","updated":"2024-09-16 10:56:10.000000000","message":"IUC the static symlink requirement is that the target object must be exactly the one specified by the etag. I guess when the target is an SLO then it\u0027s the SLO etag that a user would really care about (if the manifest changed without changing the content then that\u0027s OK?)\n\nBut pipeline ordering might make that tricky to achieve without bleeding SLO into symlink. That said, symlink middleware already has a bunch of SLO handling to patch up etags - so IDK if this is a bug or by design?","commit_id":"08d1298af4bb5ab0a24518fa5ce0de20ada2987e"}],"/PATCHSET_LEVEL":[{"author":{"_account_id":7847,"name":"Alistair Coles","email":"alistairncoles@gmail.com","username":"acoles"},"change_message_id":"455d7b7fe2a7cbf16041a3689c50d298a0a515ec","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":3,"id":"609fc165_1ad13977","updated":"2024-04-29 17:01:13.000000000","message":"Either the slo tests need to be updated to expect x-manifest-etag OR I make it a backend header so it is filtered from client responses","commit_id":"9b5fdce262e56759a2ca1cd5fa10702b1ca34eb4"},{"author":{"_account_id":7847,"name":"Alistair Coles","email":"alistairncoles@gmail.com","username":"acoles"},"change_message_id":"b16924db6292bb90e26881264de89cc349311885","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":6,"id":"18741b4d_265aa2ae","updated":"2024-09-16 10:56:10.000000000","message":"@Tim rebased on master https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/swift/+/929438","commit_id":"08d1298af4bb5ab0a24518fa5ce0de20ada2987e"},{"author":{"_account_id":15343,"name":"Tim Burke","email":"tburke@nvidia.com","username":"tburke"},"change_message_id":"2243f1cf2a4e6a6113751f382358b4c50b6355ea","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":6,"id":"52cbf9c9_bbb50ffd","updated":"2024-09-11 19:52:32.000000000","message":"Should we just land this on master? I think it would be perfectly reasonable there.","commit_id":"08d1298af4bb5ab0a24518fa5ce0de20ada2987e"}]}