Update patch set 4

Patch Set 4: Code-Review-1

(1 comment)

Oops just realized that I never actually submitted my comment here and just left it as a draft.

That line is actually problematic on a couple of fronts. Besides the potential backwards incompatibility you highlighted there isn't actually a guarantee the content object has a string representation. While most of the attachments we're dealing with are text and that would work, there isn't any guarantee that an attachment is a text type. Is there are reason we need to do that?

Patch-set: 4
Label: Code-Review=-1

932b7c1fb39e06291065e6e4f0c5d0bc2b896313

@@ -46,6 +46,30 @@
       "revId": "932b7c1fb39e06291065e6e4f0c5d0bc2b896313",
       "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543",
       "unresolved": false
+    },
+    {
+      "key": {
+        "uuid": "bf659307_213effd9",
+        "filename": "subunit2sql/read_subunit.py",
+        "patchSetId": 4
+      },
+      "lineNbr": 76,
+      "author": {
+        "id": 5196
+      },
+      "writtenOn": "2018-04-06T17:29:22Z",
+      "side": 1,
+      "message": "Yeah, we cant\u0027t really do this here. I don\u0027t know of anyone using this api, but there are likely users out there I don\u0027t know about.",
+      "parentUuid": "df7087c5_2d20eaf6",
+      "range": {
+        "startLine": 76,
+        "startChar": 39,
+        "endLine": 76,
+        "endChar": 48
+      },
+      "revId": "932b7c1fb39e06291065e6e4f0c5d0bc2b896313",
+      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543",
+      "unresolved": false
     }
   ]
 }