)]}'
{"tempest/scenario/manager.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":1921,"name":"Andrea Frittoli","email":"andrea.frittoli@gmail.com","username":"andrea-frittoli"},"change_message_id":"5ad999b6b9796eb505d9f21aa43ba0ac13d3bb09","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":1099,"context_line":"        ]"},{"line_number":1100,"context_line":"        sec_group_rules_client \u003d security_group_rules_client"},{"line_number":1101,"context_line":"        for ruleset in rulesets:"},{"line_number":1102,"context_line":"            r_direction \u003d \u0027ingress\u0027"},{"line_number":1103,"context_line":"            ruleset[\u0027direction\u0027] \u003d r_direction"},{"line_number":1104,"context_line":"            try:"},{"line_number":1105,"context_line":"                sg_rule \u003d self._create_security_group_rule("}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":4,"id":"7aa08908_8066bf4e","line":1102,"range":{"start_line":1102,"start_character":12,"end_line":1102,"end_character":35},"updated":"2016-06-08 13:49:45.000000000","message":"Not creating egress rules means we actually want to enforce and verify that rules are already there, which makes sense. Perhaps it would be good for a neutron dev to leave a comment on this patch.\nApart from this, I\u0027d really like to see a nice detailed comment explaining what is going on here, what we are enforcing with this test.","commit_id":"5ac3e5d701495480b38be9079d87281190ec14e0"},{"author":{"_account_id":9656,"name":"Ihar Hrachyshka","email":"ihrachys@redhat.com","username":"ihrachys","status":"Red Hat Networking Systems Engineer"},"change_message_id":"c8635ee4550513f5709828262f6cedcf4627d7ff","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":1099,"context_line":"        ]"},{"line_number":1100,"context_line":"        sec_group_rules_client \u003d security_group_rules_client"},{"line_number":1101,"context_line":"        for ruleset in rulesets:"},{"line_number":1102,"context_line":"            r_direction \u003d \u0027ingress\u0027"},{"line_number":1103,"context_line":"            ruleset[\u0027direction\u0027] \u003d r_direction"},{"line_number":1104,"context_line":"            try:"},{"line_number":1105,"context_line":"                sg_rule \u003d self._create_security_group_rule("}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":4,"id":"7aa08908_c23d67de","line":1102,"range":{"start_line":1102,"start_character":12,"end_line":1102,"end_character":35},"in_reply_to":"7aa08908_8066bf4e","updated":"2016-06-08 14:52:30.000000000","message":"Andrea, I checked in neutron tree, and egress was allowed by default for all security groups, default or not, for a very long time. It was that way since Grizzly: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/23264/","commit_id":"5ac3e5d701495480b38be9079d87281190ec14e0"},{"author":{"_account_id":6167,"name":"Ken\u0027ichi Ohmichi","email":"ken1ohmichi@gmail.com","username":"oomichi"},"change_message_id":"f7fe6780a182a0ff6b4ad3df2264c12c3980872f","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":1113,"context_line":"                if msg not in ex._error_string:"},{"line_number":1114,"context_line":"                    raise ex"},{"line_number":1115,"context_line":"            else:"},{"line_number":1116,"context_line":"                self.assertEqual(r_direction, sg_rule.direction)"},{"line_number":1117,"context_line":"                rules.append(sg_rule)"},{"line_number":1118,"context_line":""},{"line_number":1119,"context_line":"        return rules"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":5,"id":"7aa08908_0471ffe0","line":1116,"range":{"start_line":1116,"start_character":46,"end_line":1116,"end_character":63},"updated":"2016-06-09 13:43:30.000000000","message":"The response body contains \"egress\" clearly instead of \"ingress\" when specifying \"egress\", so I still feel this test pattern seems necessary for verifying REST API stability.","commit_id":"ec6d291305918a704c427301c9938a42197c5d5f"},{"author":{"_account_id":21302,"name":"Gena","email":"gcheresh@redhat.com","username":"gcheresh"},"change_message_id":"9f688e1801d0e8730fe409581404e4a4d19178a0","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":1113,"context_line":"                if msg not in ex._error_string:"},{"line_number":1114,"context_line":"                    raise ex"},{"line_number":1115,"context_line":"            else:"},{"line_number":1116,"context_line":"                self.assertEqual(r_direction, sg_rule.direction)"},{"line_number":1117,"context_line":"                rules.append(sg_rule)"},{"line_number":1118,"context_line":""},{"line_number":1119,"context_line":"        return rules"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":5,"id":"7aa08908_934c5b9f","line":1116,"range":{"start_line":1116,"start_character":46,"end_line":1116,"end_character":63},"in_reply_to":"7aa08908_0471ffe0","updated":"2016-06-14 10:28:45.000000000","message":"@Ken\u0027ichi Ohmichi Sorry, I am not following what you mean, assertEqual would raise exception if there was ingress/egress mix","commit_id":"ec6d291305918a704c427301c9938a42197c5d5f"},{"author":{"_account_id":21302,"name":"Gena","email":"gcheresh@redhat.com","username":"gcheresh"},"change_message_id":"15404db0edde67c7a7d97d5c85a4b93eafab735b","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":1113,"context_line":"                if msg not in ex._error_string:"},{"line_number":1114,"context_line":"                    raise ex"},{"line_number":1115,"context_line":"            else:"},{"line_number":1116,"context_line":"                self.assertEqual(r_direction, sg_rule.direction)"},{"line_number":1117,"context_line":"                rules.append(sg_rule)"},{"line_number":1118,"context_line":""},{"line_number":1119,"context_line":"        return rules"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":5,"id":"5a9d85d2_e745de17","line":1116,"range":{"start_line":1116,"start_character":46,"end_line":1116,"end_character":63},"in_reply_to":"7aa08908_7194abe7","updated":"2016-06-19 11:41:06.000000000","message":"1) Removing this line as not needed anymore\n2) Egress security group are checked in security groups scenario tests in tempest and in API","commit_id":"ec6d291305918a704c427301c9938a42197c5d5f"},{"author":{"_account_id":6167,"name":"Ken\u0027ichi Ohmichi","email":"ken1ohmichi@gmail.com","username":"oomichi"},"change_message_id":"cbe2936118eb549123af9c87b152322487d1a0b5","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":1113,"context_line":"                if msg not in ex._error_string:"},{"line_number":1114,"context_line":"                    raise ex"},{"line_number":1115,"context_line":"            else:"},{"line_number":1116,"context_line":"                self.assertEqual(r_direction, sg_rule.direction)"},{"line_number":1117,"context_line":"                rules.append(sg_rule)"},{"line_number":1118,"context_line":""},{"line_number":1119,"context_line":"        return rules"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":5,"id":"7aa08908_7194abe7","line":1116,"range":{"start_line":1116,"start_character":46,"end_line":1116,"end_character":63},"in_reply_to":"7aa08908_934c5b9f","updated":"2016-06-16 20:31:32.000000000","message":"@Genadi\n\nThe original code creates security group rules by containing \"egress\" also in a request at line 1105, and line 1116 checked the response should contain \"egress\" as direction.\n\nHowever, this patch removes the pattern.\nIn addition, there are not any tests which pass \"egress\" as the security group rule.\nThat is my concern for the test coverage.","commit_id":"ec6d291305918a704c427301c9938a42197c5d5f"}],"tempest/scenario/test_network_v6.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":12024,"name":"Tong Liu","email":"tongl@vmware.com","username":"tong101"},"change_message_id":"998935ed106767fbf82e299da3272856eed79fbd","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":175,"context_line":"        ipv6_egress_all_id \u003d ("},{"line_number":176,"context_line":"            [i[\u0027id\u0027] for i in sec_grp_rules if i[\u0027ethertype\u0027] \u003d\u003d \u0027IPv6\u0027][0])"},{"line_number":177,"context_line":"        self.security_group_rules_client.delete_security_group_rule("},{"line_number":178,"context_line":"            ipv6_egress_all_id)"},{"line_number":179,"context_line":""},{"line_number":180,"context_line":"        for i in range(n_subnets6):"},{"line_number":181,"context_line":"            # v6 should be configured since the image supports it"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"dab17558_d6821bfe","line":178,"updated":"2016-05-18 00:26:03.000000000","message":"These lines are not needed to test ICMPv6. Default security group has egress rules to allow all IPv6 traffic. The test doesn\u0027t test any IPv6 drop behavior and thus it is not necessary to remove the allow all IPv6 egress explicitly. I think adding this will even fail the test case.","commit_id":"4346af6da7d997d292693c6e523d1ba4e5e8293a"}]}