126 lines
4.7 KiB
Plaintext
126 lines
4.7 KiB
Plaintext
{
|
|
"comments": [
|
|
{
|
|
"unresolved": false,
|
|
"key": {
|
|
"uuid": "f2f19633_7eb2c79d",
|
|
"filename": "/PATCHSET_LEVEL",
|
|
"patchSetId": 8
|
|
},
|
|
"lineNbr": 0,
|
|
"author": {
|
|
"id": 9535
|
|
},
|
|
"writtenOn": "2022-05-03T10:28:38Z",
|
|
"side": 1,
|
|
"message": "Lightbits failure is due to an unrelated error: \u0027No valid host was found. There are not enough hosts available.\u0027",
|
|
"revId": "90f46447cad41fcc1f6a53596a077acbe0203127",
|
|
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"unresolved": true,
|
|
"key": {
|
|
"uuid": "dc7d8879_4d617e04",
|
|
"filename": "os_brick/initiator/initiator_connector.py",
|
|
"patchSetId": 8
|
|
},
|
|
"lineNbr": 195,
|
|
"author": {
|
|
"id": 21129
|
|
},
|
|
"writtenOn": "2022-05-06T20:55:24Z",
|
|
"side": 1,
|
|
"message": "It seems this method is often (always?) wrapped by the connect_volume_undo_prepare_result decorator. That should be documented here, if for no other reason than I haven\u0027t yet figured out why this is done!",
|
|
"revId": "90f46447cad41fcc1f6a53596a077acbe0203127",
|
|
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"unresolved": false,
|
|
"key": {
|
|
"uuid": "c7e770b4_daa4e922",
|
|
"filename": "os_brick/initiator/initiator_connector.py",
|
|
"patchSetId": 8
|
|
},
|
|
"lineNbr": 195,
|
|
"author": {
|
|
"id": 9535
|
|
},
|
|
"writtenOn": "2022-05-11T12:03:51Z",
|
|
"side": 1,
|
|
"message": "It\u0027s for the same reasons as the disconnect, if the extend_volume uses the path that was returned to know what device is being extended.\n\nAdded a comment.",
|
|
"parentUuid": "dc7d8879_4d617e04",
|
|
"revId": "90f46447cad41fcc1f6a53596a077acbe0203127",
|
|
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"unresolved": true,
|
|
"key": {
|
|
"uuid": "9857ee9a_a5360ae1",
|
|
"filename": "os_brick/privileged/rootwrap.py",
|
|
"patchSetId": 8
|
|
},
|
|
"lineNbr": 233,
|
|
"author": {
|
|
"id": 21129
|
|
},
|
|
"writtenOn": "2022-05-06T20:55:24Z",
|
|
"side": 1,
|
|
"message": "If link_name exists, should the code check whether it\u0027s actually a symlink (as opposed to a regular file)? I don\u0027t know if there\u0027s any risk of this being called that way. Conversely, maybe that\u0027s a valid use case? (delete a file and replace it with a symlink)",
|
|
"revId": "90f46447cad41fcc1f6a53596a077acbe0203127",
|
|
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"unresolved": false,
|
|
"key": {
|
|
"uuid": "e764745d_1016cbdc",
|
|
"filename": "os_brick/privileged/rootwrap.py",
|
|
"patchSetId": 8
|
|
},
|
|
"lineNbr": 233,
|
|
"author": {
|
|
"id": 9535
|
|
},
|
|
"writtenOn": "2022-05-11T12:03:51Z",
|
|
"side": 1,
|
|
"message": "My intention was to make the link_root method behave like the \"ln -s\" command, and the force parameter would be the equivalent of the \"--force\" there. Which replaces the target file even if it\u0027s not a link.\n\nI\u0027ll add a comment to the docstring to clarify it.",
|
|
"parentUuid": "9857ee9a_a5360ae1",
|
|
"revId": "90f46447cad41fcc1f6a53596a077acbe0203127",
|
|
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"unresolved": true,
|
|
"key": {
|
|
"uuid": "d1ac65ff_9161c76e",
|
|
"filename": "os_brick/utils.py",
|
|
"patchSetId": 8
|
|
},
|
|
"lineNbr": 370,
|
|
"author": {
|
|
"id": 21129
|
|
},
|
|
"writtenOn": "2022-05-06T20:55:24Z",
|
|
"side": 1,
|
|
"message": "Ooh! I can\u0027t decide if this is clever or sneaky :-)\n\nI was wonder how extend_volume() could use this decorator. I thought it would prematurely delete the symlink, but I guess this is how you avoid deleting it.\n\nIs there anyway this could be made more explicit? Maybe add a parameter so the caller specifies the behavior?",
|
|
"revId": "90f46447cad41fcc1f6a53596a077acbe0203127",
|
|
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"unresolved": false,
|
|
"key": {
|
|
"uuid": "2880229d_8ec3e4dd",
|
|
"filename": "os_brick/utils.py",
|
|
"patchSetId": 8
|
|
},
|
|
"lineNbr": 370,
|
|
"author": {
|
|
"id": 9535
|
|
},
|
|
"writtenOn": "2022-05-11T12:03:51Z",
|
|
"side": 1,
|
|
"message": "Well, in a previous patch I was deleting the symlink :-(\n\nIt can be done, making the decorator accept parameters, although it will complicate it a bit. Though given the current complexity I don\u0027t think it will get much worse.",
|
|
"parentUuid": "d1ac65ff_9161c76e",
|
|
"revId": "90f46447cad41fcc1f6a53596a077acbe0203127",
|
|
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
} |