Furthermore, if you are seeing any problems with these commands or if you *think* that they no longer behave as per your expectations, let me know :D
On 28/08/17 21:18, Anastasia Macmood wrote: > Tim, > > Completely agree :) > > By changing where these commands fit within command infrastructure, they > gained access to some useful methods. Thus, eliminating code duplication > and inconsistencies. > > The versions of command, acting as "controller" type commands, that take > no arguments, indeed exist. Both commands can be used without model > name, i.e. 'juju dump-model' and 'juju dump-db' are fully formed. These > versions still work as expected, have not changed and are, in fact, > verified by existing feature tests. > > The change that I have brought up is only applicable to the versions of > commands that were passing in a model name. > > Anastasia > > > On 28/08/17 19:16, Tim Penhey wrote: >> FYI, the developer commands were originally designed like the controller >> commands. >> >> You don't say "juju destroy-model -m foo". >> >> Tim >> >> On 28/08/17 19:48, Anastasia Macmood wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> Just a quick note for developers that use developer commands. >>> >>> 'juju dump-model' and 'juju dump-db' are changing on develop tip [1], >>> from 2.3.x. >>> These commands are now fully-fledged model commands as they were >>> originally designed. >>> This means that they will now accept model name as an option instead of >>> as a positional argument. >>> >>> i.e. >>> 'juju dump-model -m modelName' NOT 'juju dump-model modelName' >>> 'juju dump-db -m modelName' NOT 'juju dump-db modelName' >>> >>> Happy juju-ing! >>> >>> Sincerely Yours, >>> Anastasia >>> >>> [1] >>> https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/7797 >>> >>> > -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
