)]}'
{"/COMMIT_MSG":[{"author":{"_account_id":8864,"name":"Artom Lifshitz","email":"notartom@gmail.com","username":"artom"},"change_message_id":"da29ec1c78e59fda399e16bf0e110b7eaee90f7d","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":13,"context_line":""},{"line_number":14,"context_line":"[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1941005"},{"line_number":15,"context_line":""},{"line_number":16,"context_line":"Depends-on: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/whitebox-tempest-plugin/+/806232"},{"line_number":17,"context_line":""},{"line_number":18,"context_line":"Change-Id: I4a591c6399880d03d2ecdd73b70c249b8e729459"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":3,"id":"da30f81c_6a86471f","line":16,"range":{"start_line":16,"start_character":0,"end_line":16,"end_character":83},"updated":"2021-08-27 20:26:42.000000000","message":"We normally just stack these on top of each other. So;\n\n  $ \u003chack code\u003e\n  $ git commit -a\n  $ \u003chack more code for new change\u003e\n  $ git commit -a\n  $ git review\n\nAnd you get 2 commits pushed to Gerrit, one on top of the other, with a nice relation chain.","commit_id":"fca72e2c5dc42de6f9d418338c4a00ddf37020c4"},{"author":{"_account_id":31033,"name":"James Parker","email":"jparker@redhat.com","username":"jparker"},"change_message_id":"270ed2da07031d48f85d20dd9e10516be0fbfc98","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":13,"context_line":""},{"line_number":14,"context_line":"[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1941005"},{"line_number":15,"context_line":""},{"line_number":16,"context_line":"Depends-on: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/whitebox-tempest-plugin/+/806232"},{"line_number":17,"context_line":""},{"line_number":18,"context_line":"Change-Id: I4a591c6399880d03d2ecdd73b70c249b8e729459"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":3,"id":"31eece5f_68a24980","line":16,"range":{"start_line":16,"start_character":0,"end_line":16,"end_character":83},"in_reply_to":"da30f81c_6a86471f","updated":"2021-08-27 20:46:04.000000000","message":"Ack thanks I was going to follow up with you about alternatives to #depends-on.","commit_id":"fca72e2c5dc42de6f9d418338c4a00ddf37020c4"}],"whitebox_tempest_plugin/api/compute/test_vpmu.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":8864,"name":"Artom Lifshitz","email":"notartom@gmail.com","username":"artom"},"change_message_id":"da29ec1c78e59fda399e16bf0e110b7eaee90f7d","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":86,"context_line":""},{"line_number":87,"context_line":"        # Assert the only changed parameter as a result of the instance resize"},{"line_number":88,"context_line":"        # in the request spec is \u0027extra_specs\u0027"},{"line_number":89,"context_line":"        self.assertEqual(\u0027extra_specs\u0027, changed_object_data)"},{"line_number":90,"context_line":""},{"line_number":91,"context_line":"    def test_rebuild_on_to_off(self):"},{"line_number":92,"context_line":"        server \u003d self.create_test_server(image_id\u003dself.on_image_id)"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":3,"id":"ab651a25_0fbfcec0","line":89,"updated":"2021-08-27 20:26:42.000000000","message":"Wouldn\u0027t this be meaningless if len(changed_object_data) is more than 1? Or just fail outright? So if we\u0027re lucky the first item in the list is \u0027extra_specs\u0027, if we\u0027re unlucky changed_object_data is [\u0027some_other_thing\u0027, \u0027extra_specs\u0027] and we fail.\n\nI\u0027m kinda of the opinion that the first assertion helper is good enough here.\n\nThere\u0027s also the problem that updating the flavor embedded in the request_spec has never really been an issue, updating the numa_toplogy (and now pci_requests with https://launchpad.net/bugs/1941005) is where we got it wrong in Nova.\n\nI think I\u0027d like Sean to weigh in here...","commit_id":"fca72e2c5dc42de6f9d418338c4a00ddf37020c4"},{"author":{"_account_id":31033,"name":"James Parker","email":"jparker@redhat.com","username":"jparker"},"change_message_id":"270ed2da07031d48f85d20dd9e10516be0fbfc98","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":86,"context_line":""},{"line_number":87,"context_line":"        # Assert the only changed parameter as a result of the instance resize"},{"line_number":88,"context_line":"        # in the request spec is \u0027extra_specs\u0027"},{"line_number":89,"context_line":"        self.assertEqual(\u0027extra_specs\u0027, changed_object_data)"},{"line_number":90,"context_line":""},{"line_number":91,"context_line":"    def test_rebuild_on_to_off(self):"},{"line_number":92,"context_line":"        server \u003d self.create_test_server(image_id\u003dself.on_image_id)"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":3,"id":"a2056e21_54bf6445","line":89,"in_reply_to":"ab651a25_0fbfcec0","updated":"2021-08-27 20:46:04.000000000","message":"I agree the first helper is enough, I thought since the flavor is only changing extra_specs than anything other than a single list with extra_specs would be a failure.\n\nI\u0027d like to hear Sean\u0027s thoughts as well.  I do have access to multiple gpu cards per compute so I\u0027m also ok with either migrating this test coverage to a gpu/pci style test or having coverage both here and testing pci resize with a gpu.","commit_id":"fca72e2c5dc42de6f9d418338c4a00ddf37020c4"}]}