On 20/07/15 07:57, William Reade wrote: > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Tim Penhey <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Hi folks, > > Earlier today I was investigating this CRITICAL BLOCKER bug: > https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1475724 > > > I'll talk about the specific bug to begin with, but there's a much > more important bit further down. If you're pressed for time, skip down > to the point marked "THE IMPORTANT BIT". > > But as you can see above, there was not a second update-status before > the config-changed (but there is one after on both). > > Really the test doesn't care one hoot about the update-status > hook, all > it really cared about checking was the config-changed. [2] > The immediate bit: So, I agree we have a big elephant on the room and we might have all been looking the other way (most likely distracted by the pack of velocirraptors on the other side). We ought to sit and talk about this tech-debt negotiation, as any debt negotiation this takes a couple of rounds of discussion around a table, some shouting and a conclusion that might let none of us completely happy but will produce the best outcome in terms of reliability and functionality for the experience/service we are trying to provide here. In the immediate however, this is blocking master so Ill be working on a solution that solves the symptom at hand as we know this works in practice it is a matter of better defining the tests for now while we work ASAP in a better foundation for at least idle and whatever is built on top of it. As a side note, we need to spread some education about the uniter, its innards and the design philosophy around it since much of the added code on it seems a result of just throwing a case into the select, see what it did and then accommodate to it (my very first approach included). Cheers. -- Horacio
-- Juju-dev mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
