Update patch set 2

Patch Set 2: Code-Review+1

(3 comments)

Thanks for the patch!!!!

I don't +2, not because of the inline comments, but because I think we should merge the patch that add CI jobs [1] and then run the tests on this patch.

[1]: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/638442/

Patch-set: 2
Label: Code-Review=+1

27aa25ebafa20801e1c8ed3d451925a39a7e9ab8

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+{
+  "comments": [
+    {
+      "key": {
+        "uuid": "9fdfeff1_4f09e981",
+        "filename": "/COMMIT_MSG",
+        "patchSetId": 2
+      },
+      "lineNbr": 14,
+      "author": {
+        "id": 9535
+      },
+      "writtenOn": "2019-02-26T16:24:13Z",
+      "side": 1,
+      "message": "nit: Would be nice to mention the change-id of the cinder patch that adds this feature (I3e7db26ef3df24a12e3bfa219fe25bfb315335ec).",
+      "revId": "27aa25ebafa20801e1c8ed3d451925a39a7e9ab8",
+      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543",
+      "unresolved": false
+    },
+    {
+      "key": {
+        "uuid": "9fdfeff1_0f21a14d",
+        "filename": "cinderlib/cinderlib.py",
+        "patchSetId": 2
+      },
+      "lineNbr": 403,
+      "author": {
+        "id": 9535
+      },
+      "writtenOn": "2019-02-26T16:24:13Z",
+      "side": 1,
+      "message": "nit: I think it looks nicer with dict comprehension\n\n tmp_dict \u003d {k: str(v) for k, v in vars(opt).items()\n             if not k.startswith(\u0027_\u0027)}\n\nWe could construct the whole `options` this way, but maybe it loses clarity:\n\n options \u003d [{k: str(v) for k, v in vars(opt).items()\n             if not k.startswith(\u0027_\u0027)}\n            for opt in oslo_options]",
+      "range": {
+        "startLine": 400,
+        "startChar": 0,
+        "endLine": 403,
+        "endChar": 62
+      },
+      "revId": "27aa25ebafa20801e1c8ed3d451925a39a7e9ab8",
+      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543",
+      "unresolved": false
+    },
+    {
+      "key": {
+        "uuid": "9fdfeff1_af0975dd",
+        "filename": "cinderlib/cinderlib.py",
+        "patchSetId": 2
+      },
+      "lineNbr": 430,
+      "author": {
+        "id": 9535
+      },
+      "writtenOn": "2019-02-26T16:24:13Z",
+      "side": 1,
+      "message": "nit: I think it\u0027s clearer to see the join first (like it was) waiting for the other process to finish before checking the queue instead of just relying on the fact that `queue.get` defaults to blocking without timeout.",
+      "revId": "27aa25ebafa20801e1c8ed3d451925a39a7e9ab8",
+      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543",
+      "unresolved": false
+    }
+  ]
+}