)]}'
{"/COMMIT_MSG":[{"author":{"_account_id":748,"name":"Armando Migliaccio","email":"armamig@gmail.com","username":"armando-migliaccio"},"change_message_id":"a9b6d6b5f9dfb1d0b6cca9380201e609305582ac","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":23,"context_line":"for the router type and if DVR then it would only"},{"line_number":24,"context_line":"apply single subnet for the router."},{"line_number":25,"context_line":""},{"line_number":26,"context_line":"Once the bug 1465434 is resolved, we can revert this"},{"line_number":27,"context_line":"patch."},{"line_number":28,"context_line":""},{"line_number":29,"context_line":"Change-Id: I0d8916018009990150a9f8e3c9a677bb55882be2"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":4,"id":"fa32b979_0a71d80b","line":26,"updated":"2015-06-24 18:57:53.000000000","message":"what\u0027s the plan to fix this bug in Neutron? Without an understanding of complexity/timeline for the right fix, it\u0027s difficult to give any attention to this patch.\n\nWe haven\u0027t even run the dvr job once on this patch. Do we really know that this does indeed mask the issue?","commit_id":"7bc3792c16149f4e71f9645cb6313ecb201716c0"},{"author":{"_account_id":7016,"name":"Swaminathan Vasudevan","email":"swvasude@cisco.com","username":"souminathan"},"change_message_id":"18b5ee606e820a859e49a7579eb6aa1c34daaf50","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":23,"context_line":"for the router type and if DVR then it would only"},{"line_number":24,"context_line":"apply single subnet for the router."},{"line_number":25,"context_line":""},{"line_number":26,"context_line":"Once the bug 1465434 is resolved, we can revert this"},{"line_number":27,"context_line":"patch."},{"line_number":28,"context_line":""},{"line_number":29,"context_line":"Change-Id: I0d8916018009990150a9f8e3c9a677bb55882be2"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":4,"id":"fa32b979_9bf45cf1","line":26,"in_reply_to":"fa32b979_0a71d80b","updated":"2015-06-24 20:04:48.000000000","message":"We are working on fixing this problem in neutron.\nRight now there are couple of issues that we are seeing.\n1. First the PortContext for DVR is messed up with the latest refactor to the Portbinding to make it generic. The PortContext is not returing the right context for DVR router interface update.\n2. Addressing the dual subnet issue with single network. \n\nYes this patch at least fixes the existing two test failures that we are consistently seeing with the DVR job.","commit_id":"7bc3792c16149f4e71f9645cb6313ecb201716c0"},{"author":{"_account_id":7016,"name":"Swaminathan Vasudevan","email":"swvasude@cisco.com","username":"souminathan"},"change_message_id":"98f56ac625be0ffe9d6172eca9db334456d37227","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":23,"context_line":"for the router type and if DVR then it would only"},{"line_number":24,"context_line":"apply single subnet for the router."},{"line_number":25,"context_line":""},{"line_number":26,"context_line":"Once the bug 1465434 is resolved, we can revert this"},{"line_number":27,"context_line":"patch."},{"line_number":28,"context_line":""},{"line_number":29,"context_line":"Change-Id: I0d8916018009990150a9f8e3c9a677bb55882be2"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":4,"id":"fa32b979_51744966","line":26,"in_reply_to":"fa32b979_9bf45cf1","updated":"2015-06-25 16:07:36.000000000","message":"Aramando the two main IPv6 tempest tests that are consistently failing is not failing anymore with this patch.","commit_id":"7bc3792c16149f4e71f9645cb6313ecb201716c0"}],"tempest/scenario/test_network_v6.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":7448,"name":"Carl Baldwin","email":"carl@ecbaldwin.net","username":"carl-baldwin"},"change_message_id":"0671a715730e5ab26dacc8457f28c646611c0c97","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":89,"context_line":"        # the DVR routers, until the bug is addressed."},{"line_number":90,"context_line":"        # #bug-no: 1465434. There is no way that we can just \"skip\""},{"line_number":91,"context_line":"        # those particular test just for the DVR job, so we have taken"},{"line_number":92,"context_line":"        # an alternate approach."},{"line_number":93,"context_line":"        router_dict \u003d self._list_routers(id\u003drouter[\u0027id\u0027])[0]"},{"line_number":94,"context_line":"        if router_dict.get(\u0027distributed\u0027, False):"},{"line_number":95,"context_line":"            n_subnets6 \u003d 1"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"fa32b979_2e21a29f","line":92,"updated":"2015-06-16 18:17:00.000000000","message":"I think this could be shortened a little.  Starting with \"There is no way that we can just ...\" could be moved to the commit message as justification for the approach.\n\nAlso, general verboseness could be reduced.  For example:  \"But since DVR already has a bug associated with this test case, we would like to temporarily skip this test case just for the DVR routers, until the bug is addressed. #bug-no:  ...\"  Could be shortened.\n\n  \"Bug 1465434 has been filed to address this in DVR and remove this work-around.\"\n\nExtra verboseness adds cognitive overhead to reviewers and future readers of the code.  Trick is to get the meaning across unambiguously but with few words.  :)","commit_id":"ea1df5caf6cca06e7c3134e018ddccaa22946d69"},{"author":{"_account_id":7016,"name":"Swaminathan Vasudevan","email":"swvasude@cisco.com","username":"souminathan"},"change_message_id":"ace76ee32914cdc31851d586bf05964d0cba228c","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":89,"context_line":"        # the DVR routers, until the bug is addressed."},{"line_number":90,"context_line":"        # #bug-no: 1465434. There is no way that we can just \"skip\""},{"line_number":91,"context_line":"        # those particular test just for the DVR job, so we have taken"},{"line_number":92,"context_line":"        # an alternate approach."},{"line_number":93,"context_line":"        router_dict \u003d self._list_routers(id\u003drouter[\u0027id\u0027])[0]"},{"line_number":94,"context_line":"        if router_dict.get(\u0027distributed\u0027, False):"},{"line_number":95,"context_line":"            n_subnets6 \u003d 1"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"fa32b979_41a957de","line":92,"in_reply_to":"fa32b979_2e21a29f","updated":"2015-06-16 18:32:18.000000000","message":"Done","commit_id":"ea1df5caf6cca06e7c3134e018ddccaa22946d69"},{"author":{"_account_id":7448,"name":"Carl Baldwin","email":"carl@ecbaldwin.net","username":"carl-baldwin"},"change_message_id":"0671a715730e5ab26dacc8457f28c646611c0c97","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":145,"context_line":"        self.assertIn(ips_from_api_1[\u00274\u0027], ips_from_ip_1)"},{"line_number":146,"context_line":"        self.assertIn(ips_from_api_2[\u00274\u0027], ips_from_ip_2)"},{"line_number":147,"context_line":"        if router_dict.get(\u0027distributed\u0027, False):"},{"line_number":148,"context_line":"            n_subnets6 \u003d 1"},{"line_number":149,"context_line":"        for i in range(n_subnets6):"},{"line_number":150,"context_line":"            # v6 should be configured since the image supports it"},{"line_number":151,"context_line":"            # It can take time for ipv6 automatic address to get assigned"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"fa32b979_0e937ea4","line":148,"updated":"2015-06-16 18:17:00.000000000","message":"I think a simple comment referring to the TODO above is in order:\n\n  See TODO regarding bug 1465434 in method \"prepare_network\"","commit_id":"ea1df5caf6cca06e7c3134e018ddccaa22946d69"},{"author":{"_account_id":7016,"name":"Swaminathan Vasudevan","email":"swvasude@cisco.com","username":"souminathan"},"change_message_id":"ace76ee32914cdc31851d586bf05964d0cba228c","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":145,"context_line":"        self.assertIn(ips_from_api_1[\u00274\u0027], ips_from_ip_1)"},{"line_number":146,"context_line":"        self.assertIn(ips_from_api_2[\u00274\u0027], ips_from_ip_2)"},{"line_number":147,"context_line":"        if router_dict.get(\u0027distributed\u0027, False):"},{"line_number":148,"context_line":"            n_subnets6 \u003d 1"},{"line_number":149,"context_line":"        for i in range(n_subnets6):"},{"line_number":150,"context_line":"            # v6 should be configured since the image supports it"},{"line_number":151,"context_line":"            # It can take time for ipv6 automatic address to get assigned"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"fa32b979_e1b0ab45","line":148,"in_reply_to":"fa32b979_0e937ea4","updated":"2015-06-16 18:32:18.000000000","message":"Done","commit_id":"ea1df5caf6cca06e7c3134e018ddccaa22946d69"},{"author":{"_account_id":5196,"name":"Matthew Treinish","email":"mtreinish@kortar.org","username":"treinish"},"change_message_id":"7f8e65339e82641b7dea53ea3285fb7aa0d54a90","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":84,"context_line":"        # This is a valid test case and should be honoured."},{"line_number":85,"context_line":"        # Bug 1465434 has been filed to address this in DVR and"},{"line_number":86,"context_line":"        # remove this work-around."},{"line_number":87,"context_line":"        router_dict \u003d self._list_routers(id\u003drouter[\u0027id\u0027])[0]"},{"line_number":88,"context_line":"        if router_dict.get(\u0027distributed\u0027, False):"},{"line_number":89,"context_line":"            n_subnets6 \u003d 1"},{"line_number":90,"context_line":"        for _ in range(n_subnets6):"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":4,"id":"fa32b979_8ab5e8ed","line":87,"updated":"2015-06-24 18:57:55.000000000","message":"Why do you need to do another list here? Shouldn\u0027t the distributed attr already be in the dict response from the _get_router call before? It seems weird that you need to do a list to get a single router\u0027s details.","commit_id":"7bc3792c16149f4e71f9645cb6313ecb201716c0"},{"author":{"_account_id":7016,"name":"Swaminathan Vasudevan","email":"swvasude@cisco.com","username":"souminathan"},"change_message_id":"18b5ee606e820a859e49a7579eb6aa1c34daaf50","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":84,"context_line":"        # This is a valid test case and should be honoured."},{"line_number":85,"context_line":"        # Bug 1465434 has been filed to address this in DVR and"},{"line_number":86,"context_line":"        # remove this work-around."},{"line_number":87,"context_line":"        router_dict \u003d self._list_routers(id\u003drouter[\u0027id\u0027])[0]"},{"line_number":88,"context_line":"        if router_dict.get(\u0027distributed\u0027, False):"},{"line_number":89,"context_line":"            n_subnets6 \u003d 1"},{"line_number":90,"context_line":"        for _ in range(n_subnets6):"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":4,"id":"fa32b979_dbd50443","line":87,"in_reply_to":"fa32b979_8ab5e8ed","updated":"2015-06-24 20:04:48.000000000","message":"The distributed attribute is currently only seen as an admin and the _get_router is not returning the distributed attribute, that\u0027s why I need to work around this.","commit_id":"7bc3792c16149f4e71f9645cb6313ecb201716c0"}]}