-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 103
add missing "revision" parameter to addModel step. #1043
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
add missing "revision" parameter to addModel step. #1043
Conversation
1 similar comment
jameinel
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It definitely feels like we are missing a test of some form (plausibly an integration test), to ensure that bundles with charm revisions are properly deployed, but the change itself seems plausible.
…thub.com:Thanhphan1147/python-libjuju into add_missing_revision_params_in_bundle_add_charms
cderici
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the change @Thanhphan1147! A little fix for the failing test is needed on this one, let's get that passing, then we can take over and do some manual QA to get this landed👍
Co-authored-by: Caner Derici <caner.derici@canonical.com>
Co-authored-by: Caner Derici <caner.derici@canonical.com>
…thub.com:Thanhphan1147/python-libjuju into add_missing_revision_params_in_bundle_add_charms
|
the added integration test seems to be passing locally for me. |
|
@cderici Seems like a few other integration tests are having issues, maybe a few updates on the bundle definitions as jammy is not a supported series for the old charms. The one I added seems to be fine: |
cderici
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This LGTM, manual QA performed against 3.4, everything seems to be working fine 👍
@Thanhphan1147 I can confirm that the failing tests are known test failures that'll be fixed soon (and unrelated to this change), this can land safely 👍thanks again for the contribution, much appreciated!
|
@Thanhphan1147 Caner is off until Monday. I would tend to wait for him to merge this, but if you need it sooner, let us know. |
|
@jameinel nothing urgent from me, thanks for your help on this PR! |
|
/merge |
|
/build |
|
/merge |
#1056 ## What's Changed * Make consume respect the controller name in the url by @Aflynn50 in #1038 * Fix multiline description in textarea in bug template GH workflow by @cderici in #1041 * Fix issue with microk8s proxy by @Aflynn50 in #1044 * add missing "revision" parameter to addModel step. by @Thanhphan1147 in #1043 * Add user api to pylibjuju documentation by @cderici in #1049 ## New Contributors * @Thanhphan1147 made their first contribution in #1043 **Full Changelog**: 3.4.0.0...3.5.0.0
Description
Fixes #1042.
When deploying a bundle, although the plan is properly generated with the correct revision for the charms in the bundle, and the change steps are generated with the correct parameter. I believe that the
addCharmstep does not take into account the specified "revision" of the charm to deploy, as a result the revision deployed is the latest revision instead of the specified revision. ref:python-libjuju/juju/bundle.py
Lines 709 to 713 in 5ed5ae4
This PR simply adds the missing parameter to the
AddCharmChangestep and propagate the value toclient.CharmOriginto add the correct revision.QA Steps
model.deploydoc.go added or updated in changed package(I think this is too small of a change to warrant a doc update)