)]}'
{"/PATCHSET_LEVEL":[{"author":{"_account_id":4523,"name":"Eric Harney","email":"eharney@redhat.com","username":"eharney"},"change_message_id":"691e2ad89ba7ae6b7eb4e4a579d03c0f0b498c95","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"846d1f77_69613c7d","updated":"2025-05-13 11:41:56.000000000","message":"I\u0027m not sure it makes sense to handle this as a change to the tempest test -- this seems like a behavioral change in the API that should be handled in Nova if not in Glance. The test failures here are showing that current users of these APIs are now exposed to unexpected behavior  changes, i.e. that images in the active state previously were deletable and now they are not.","commit_id":"8c37e975f560e6add239b2125c012cda99c54098"},{"author":{"_account_id":27615,"name":"Rajat Dhasmana","email":"rajatdhasmana@gmail.com","username":"whoami-rajat"},"change_message_id":"5da874b79c89596a94d2e3ce6ebcfd48bf65bcfd","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"7e05aa85_7ac2000f","in_reply_to":"846d1f77_69613c7d","updated":"2025-05-13 11:50:19.000000000","message":"I agree that we introduced a new behavior (i.e. not able to delete an \u0027active\u0027 image when hash calculation is going on in background) but the tempest changes is doing the best thing to do with current design.\nIf we want to change the design, it can be a separate discussion with nova/glance/cinder teams which could take months if not year to figure out and implemented.\nFor the short term fix, we should document this behavior and move ahead with the tempest changes -- which is doing nothing but waiting for the image to be \"actually\" available before deleting it.","commit_id":"8c37e975f560e6add239b2125c012cda99c54098"},{"author":{"_account_id":4393,"name":"Dan Smith","email":"dms@danplanet.com","username":"danms"},"change_message_id":"c878836fd9243e78bcd23ab463e98aef81665c24","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"0ebf7441_7d60ac11","updated":"2025-05-19 15:33:03.000000000","message":"Agree with Eric, this is the sort of API/behavior change that tempest is not supposed to have to account for. This change means that the behavior has changed, so unless we are planning to change the API behavior, this change to tempest should not be made. AFAIK, the real solution to the problem has not been decided (on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/glance/+/949668) so I would avoid doing this in tempest.\n\nFor now, perhaps nova should revert the patch to use the new v2 location API until the issue is resolved.","commit_id":"817d54ca55b91f20da80fc4815d6e77dd35659d3"}]}