)]}'
{"/COMMIT_MSG":[{"author":{"_account_id":20378,"name":"Trevor McCasland","email":"TM2086@att.com","username":"twm2016"},"change_message_id":"b8c2f7affd6aebb59d772f5bf150e45459ee4d49","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":24,"context_line":""},{"line_number":25,"context_line":"-- replication"},{"line_number":26,"context_line":""},{"line_number":27,"context_line":"Times (on a fast test machine) went from 2230s to 1720s, an"},{"line_number":28,"context_line":"improvement of 23%."},{"line_number":29,"context_line":""},{"line_number":30,"context_line":"The group labels were moved into the __init__.py file to facilitate"},{"line_number":31,"context_line":"being accessed by different group implementations (to avoid a"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":6,"id":"7aa08908_ac98bb6b","line":28,"range":{"start_line":27,"start_character":57,"end_line":28,"end_character":19},"updated":"2016-06-09 22:49:42.000000000","message":"I think you want speed up here; it\u0027s the comparison of two machines processing the same problem. The fast test machine is 1.297 times faster than (other machine). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedup","commit_id":"d6e128b965dcde367e8369b31a692a2392b9b380"}],"trove/tests/scenario/runners/user_actions_runners.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":20378,"name":"Trevor McCasland","email":"TM2086@att.com","username":"twm2016"},"change_message_id":"b8c2f7affd6aebb59d772f5bf150e45459ee4d49","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":371,"context_line":"        self.auth_client.users.delete(instance_id, user_name, user_host)"},{"line_number":372,"context_line":"        self.assert_client_code(expected_http_code)"},{"line_number":373,"context_line":""},{"line_number":374,"context_line":"        self.assert_raises(exceptions.NotFound, 404,"},{"line_number":375,"context_line":"                           self.auth_client.users.get,"},{"line_number":376,"context_line":"                           instance_id, user_name, user_host)"},{"line_number":377,"context_line":""},{"line_number":378,"context_line":"        self._wait_for_user_delete(instance_id, user_name)"},{"line_number":379,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":6,"id":"7aa08908_8db5f67f","side":"PARENT","line":376,"range":{"start_line":374,"start_character":8,"end_line":376,"end_character":61},"updated":"2016-06-09 22:49:42.000000000","message":"It\u0027s weird you only remove this where other functions do similar calls like run_nonexisting_user_show or assert_user_show_failure. Is there a reason you deleted this one specifically and not the others? I would prefer to leave this check here because it will verify the user is no longer accessible through get. \n\nIt seems to me there are two ways to do this, either check the client_code or verify the proper exception has been raised. I don\u0027t know which is better or both.","commit_id":"bc568b096a8b0aedc40484488f3ed65fc8de9129"},{"author":{"_account_id":14576,"name":"Petr Malik","email":"pmalik@tesora.com","username":"pmalik"},"change_message_id":"127b27b7b3d2951359eacc1dc3c9ab38b3ac0412","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":371,"context_line":"        self.auth_client.users.delete(instance_id, user_name, user_host)"},{"line_number":372,"context_line":"        self.assert_client_code(expected_http_code)"},{"line_number":373,"context_line":""},{"line_number":374,"context_line":"        self.assert_raises(exceptions.NotFound, 404,"},{"line_number":375,"context_line":"                           self.auth_client.users.get,"},{"line_number":376,"context_line":"                           instance_id, user_name, user_host)"},{"line_number":377,"context_line":""},{"line_number":378,"context_line":"        self._wait_for_user_delete(instance_id, user_name)"},{"line_number":379,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":6,"id":"7aa08908_e0d0fccb","side":"PARENT","line":376,"range":{"start_line":374,"start_character":8,"end_line":376,"end_character":61},"in_reply_to":"7aa08908_8db5f67f","updated":"2016-06-10 00:25:12.000000000","message":"Hi.\n\n\u0027_wait_for_user_delete\u0027 will essentially do the same job.\n\nMany (almost all) Trove guest operations are casts. They return rightaway. Deleting a user is not an exception. We cannot simply assert after delete call because the user may still be on the instance.\nIt used to be that way before, but it was causing random failures for the above reason.\n\nThe \u0027_wait_for_user_delete\u0027 will poll for 60s for the user to go away.\n\nWe could assert the exception again after the wait, but I don\u0027t think its necessary as there already is a negative test for this (see \u0027run_nonexisting_user_delete\u0027).\n\nP.","commit_id":"bc568b096a8b0aedc40484488f3ed65fc8de9129"}]}