osmo-bsc/f0ea7a21093197d45ddd093866e...

146 lines
4.3 KiB
Plaintext

{
"comments": [
{
"unresolved": true,
"key": {
"uuid": "893773ba_ff87bb28",
"filename": "src/osmo-bsc/bsc_vty.c",
"patchSetId": 1
},
"lineNbr": 262,
"author": {
"id": 1000010
},
"writtenOn": "2024-01-15T18:27:47Z",
"side": 1,
"message": "`online` in the command name suggests that the command is supposed to show only those BTS instances, which are online. However, it\u0027s actually more like `brief`.",
"range": {
"startLine": 262,
"startChar": 3,
"endLine": 262,
"endChar": 41
},
"revId": "f0ea7a21093197d45ddd093866e42ddfd60ff777",
"serverId": "035e6965-6537-41bd-912c-053f3cf69326"
},
{
"unresolved": true,
"key": {
"uuid": "1be7eba2_c792ca27",
"filename": "src/osmo-bsc/bsc_vty.c",
"patchSetId": 1
},
"lineNbr": 262,
"author": {
"id": 1000004
},
"writtenOn": "2024-01-18T09:00:49Z",
"side": 1,
"message": "I think we already used \u0027summary\u0027 in some similar cases on the VTY interface. But \u0027brief\u0027 also works for me. The \u0027online\u0027 also confused me. ACtually twice: First I read it as \"oneline\" and was wondering how the status of 256 BTSs in one line looks like. Then the \"show only online BTSs\" meaning that fixeria pointed out.",
"parentUuid": "893773ba_ff87bb28",
"range": {
"startLine": 262,
"startChar": 3,
"endLine": 262,
"endChar": 41
},
"revId": "f0ea7a21093197d45ddd093866e42ddfd60ff777",
"serverId": "035e6965-6537-41bd-912c-053f3cf69326"
},
{
"unresolved": false,
"key": {
"uuid": "e124f85b_a81186e0",
"filename": "src/osmo-bsc/bsc_vty.c",
"patchSetId": 1
},
"lineNbr": 262,
"author": {
"id": 1000231
},
"writtenOn": "2024-01-19T10:00:29Z",
"side": 1,
"message": "Done",
"parentUuid": "1be7eba2_c792ca27",
"range": {
"startLine": 262,
"startChar": 3,
"endLine": 262,
"endChar": 41
},
"revId": "f0ea7a21093197d45ddd093866e42ddfd60ff777",
"serverId": "035e6965-6537-41bd-912c-053f3cf69326"
},
{
"unresolved": true,
"key": {
"uuid": "3c2438f5_47eee87a",
"filename": "src/osmo-bsc/bsc_vty.c",
"patchSetId": 1
},
"lineNbr": 268,
"author": {
"id": 1000010
},
"writtenOn": "2024-01-15T18:27:47Z",
"side": 1,
"message": "Not a performance critical path, but I would still suggest doing this:\n\n```\nllist_for_each_entry(bts, \u0026net-\u003ebts_list, list)\n```\n\ninstead. This is what `gsm_bts_num()` does internally. The problem with the current approach is that the higher `bts_nr` you pass it, the more iterations it takes to find the BTS instance.",
"range": {
"startLine": 268,
"startChar": 1,
"endLine": 268,
"endChar": 50
},
"revId": "f0ea7a21093197d45ddd093866e42ddfd60ff777",
"serverId": "035e6965-6537-41bd-912c-053f3cf69326"
},
{
"unresolved": true,
"key": {
"uuid": "d624d09d_fb7c994e",
"filename": "src/osmo-bsc/bsc_vty.c",
"patchSetId": 1
},
"lineNbr": 268,
"author": {
"id": 1000004
},
"writtenOn": "2024-01-18T09:00:49Z",
"side": 1,
"message": "Ack",
"parentUuid": "3c2438f5_47eee87a",
"range": {
"startLine": 268,
"startChar": 1,
"endLine": 268,
"endChar": 50
},
"revId": "f0ea7a21093197d45ddd093866e42ddfd60ff777",
"serverId": "035e6965-6537-41bd-912c-053f3cf69326"
},
{
"unresolved": false,
"key": {
"uuid": "90e320dd_5384c948",
"filename": "src/osmo-bsc/bsc_vty.c",
"patchSetId": 1
},
"lineNbr": 268,
"author": {
"id": 1000231
},
"writtenOn": "2024-01-19T10:00:29Z",
"side": 1,
"message": "Done",
"parentUuid": "d624d09d_fb7c994e",
"range": {
"startLine": 268,
"startChar": 1,
"endLine": 268,
"endChar": 50
},
"revId": "f0ea7a21093197d45ddd093866e42ddfd60ff777",
"serverId": "035e6965-6537-41bd-912c-053f3cf69326"
}
]
}