)]}'
{"tempest/cmd/account_generator.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":5196,"name":"Matthew Treinish","email":"mtreinish@kortar.org","username":"treinish"},"change_message_id":"b73a9352a31c1c780ad0cfe5f4772267a4170b79","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":137,"context_line":"        **params"},{"line_number":138,"context_line":"    )"},{"line_number":139,"context_line":"    network_admin \u003d None"},{"line_number":140,"context_line":"    neutron_iso_networks \u003d False"},{"line_number":141,"context_line":"    if (CONF.service_available.neutron and"},{"line_number":142,"context_line":"        CONF.auth.create_isolated_networks):"},{"line_number":143,"context_line":"        neutron_iso_networks \u003d True"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":10,"id":"ba15a1d1_59f7db58","line":140,"updated":"2015-09-17 03:57:26.000000000","message":"These neutron_iso_networks changes seem a bit unrelated to the commit. Not saying they\u0027re a bad change definitely makes the logic here better, I\u0027m just not sure how it\u0027s related to the neutron client split.","commit_id":"aefcf821436611fe3a1424d35aff6b683b182710"},{"author":{"_account_id":8001,"name":"John Warren","email":"jswarren@us.ibm.com","username":"jswarren"},"change_message_id":"4eef6eeee9626c249b925b1bd125ba59e524c553","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":137,"context_line":"        **params"},{"line_number":138,"context_line":"    )"},{"line_number":139,"context_line":"    network_admin \u003d None"},{"line_number":140,"context_line":"    neutron_iso_networks \u003d False"},{"line_number":141,"context_line":"    if (CONF.service_available.neutron and"},{"line_number":142,"context_line":"        CONF.auth.create_isolated_networks):"},{"line_number":143,"context_line":"        neutron_iso_networks \u003d True"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":10,"id":"ba15a1d1_1dbd88d7","line":140,"in_reply_to":"ba15a1d1_59f7db58","updated":"2015-09-18 13:15:32.000000000","message":"(second reply)  The reasoning behind the introduction of the new boolean is much less compelling in the context of having only one network client.  Only when a second or third network client is introduced does it become clear (at least in my mind) that the additional tuple item in the return value and additional parameter in the method call is justified.  With the single network client the None vs. not-None value distinction is a not-too-egregious substitute for the boolean, thus one would likely not think to make the change in isolation.","commit_id":"aefcf821436611fe3a1424d35aff6b683b182710"},{"author":{"_account_id":8001,"name":"John Warren","email":"jswarren@us.ibm.com","username":"jswarren"},"change_message_id":"b692e26386cf50f1bbed4a8fb085551b7f259e5f","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":137,"context_line":"        **params"},{"line_number":138,"context_line":"    )"},{"line_number":139,"context_line":"    network_admin \u003d None"},{"line_number":140,"context_line":"    neutron_iso_networks \u003d False"},{"line_number":141,"context_line":"    if (CONF.service_available.neutron and"},{"line_number":142,"context_line":"        CONF.auth.create_isolated_networks):"},{"line_number":143,"context_line":"        neutron_iso_networks \u003d True"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":10,"id":"ba15a1d1_624ae356","line":140,"in_reply_to":"ba15a1d1_59f7db58","updated":"2015-09-18 12:46:17.000000000","message":"The thinking was that the conditional in line 190 of the original code could not remain the way it was, because the implication would be that only one client needed to not be null in order to execute the code when in fact more than one client needs to not be null.  In the context of knowing that there would ultimately be three clients passed into create_network_resources (networks, subnets and routers), I opted to create a single boolean to drive the logic rather than have a cluttered three-clause conditional.  In the context of this change, I wanted to keep from making muddy waters even muddier by adding a second clause to the conditional.  While I understand the need to have cohesive changes, I don\u0027t believe code should be made worse for the sake of that sort of cohesion.","commit_id":"aefcf821436611fe3a1424d35aff6b683b182710"}]}