Update patch set 15

Patch Set 15:

(1 comment)

Patch-set: 15
Attention: {"person_ident":"Gerrit User 27900 \u003c27900@4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543\u003e","operation":"REMOVE","reason":"\u003cGERRIT_ACCOUNT_27900\u003e replied on the change"}
Attention: {"person_ident":"Gerrit User 28356 \u003c28356@4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543\u003e","operation":"ADD","reason":"\u003cGERRIT_ACCOUNT_27900\u003e replied on the change"}

8305797037e04aa67186e4aec1e3ee8adfd25ab9

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+{
+  "comments": [
+    {
+      "unresolved": false,
+      "key": {
+        "uuid": "23247a08_cc07ced4",
+        "filename": "/PATCHSET_LEVEL",
+        "patchSetId": 15
+      },
+      "lineNbr": 0,
+      "author": {
+        "id": 27900
+      },
+      "writtenOn": "2024-04-10T09:47:20Z",
+      "side": 1,
+      "message": "still -1\n\n- previous change of adding \"domain\" field was unnecessary, since it is already present under the user. Sadly this became clear only after landing the implementation and starting deploying the feature\n- jsonschema was modified in a previous change with an error (see https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/keystone/+/915401). Sadly also this became clear only accidentally from another initiative\n- all this forces me to become nitpicky. Mapping schema is already over-complicated for understanding (especially having domain property duplicated causes confusion for most parties that started relying on the changed functionality - nobody understands clearly its purpose and side-effects when user.domain !\u003d domain or only one of them set). Adding new field into the schema (projects_json) just to save few lines of code is not a good design and strongly differs from the pattern in all other Keystone APIs and especially in the same api (https://opendev.org/openstack/keystone/src/branch/master/keystone/federation/utils.py#L107 or https://opendev.org/openstack/keystone/src/branch/master/keystone/federation/utils.py#L129 for reference). I am strongly against of adding \"projects_json\" parameter and prefer extending existing \"projects\" field\n\nThe change purpose is good, the API change is bad from my perspective",
+      "revId": "8305797037e04aa67186e4aec1e3ee8adfd25ab9",
+      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
+    }
+  ]
+}