Re: Tests do not pass with go1.7

Given the error message, I think this is our "prevent us from contacting real websites in the test run" failing. This is one of those "global state is bad" cases because we had to patch global state during the run of the tests but prob 1.7 changes what global state we need to touch. John =:-> On

Re: Model config

On 09/06/16 11:35, Andrew Wilkins wrote: > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 9:01 PM Mark Shuttleworth > wrote: > > > juju set-model-defaults > > > I was mostly wondering whether we should have model defaults, or > things that that we'd set at a common level

Re: Model config

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 9:01 PM Mark Shuttleworth wrote: > > juju set-model-defaults > I was mostly wondering whether we should have model defaults, or things that that we'd set at a common level *without* the ability to set on a per-model basis to keep things

Tests do not pass with go1.7

Just FYI, in case anyone was like me and decided they wanted to jump on the faster compile times in 1.7... some of our tests do not pass in go 1.7: https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1589350 -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at:

Conjure-up, an Introduction

Hi all, We've recently released the next version of conjure-up. If you are not familiar with conjure-up and how it can make your life that much more productive please have a look at this blog post: https://insights.ubuntu.com/2016/06/09/conjure-up-an-introduction/ We will be on a weekly release

Re: A cautionary tale - mgo asserts

On 8 June 2016 at 22:36, John Meinel wrote: > ... >> > > >> >> ops := []txn.Op{{ >> C: "collection", >> Id: ..., >> Assert: bson.M{ >> "some-field.A": "foo", >> "some-field.B": 99, >> }, >> Update: ... >> } >> >> ...

Re: A cautionary tale - mgo asserts

On 9 June 2016 at 03:44, Gustavo Niemeyer wrote: > Is it mgo/txn that is internally unmarahalling onto that? > > Let's get that fixed at its heart. > That would be ideal. The root of the problem is that the Assert, Insert and Update fields of txn.Op are of type

Apache Bigtop Juju Charming Effort

[NB: cross posted to Juju and Bigtop lists] I wanted to introduce the wiki page that we, the Juju Big Software team, created to coordinate the community effort to create Juju charms for the various Apache Bigtop components: https://github.com/juju-solutions/bigdata-community/wiki/Apache-Bigtop

Re: Displaying dashboard URL in juju status

Yes, there's some discussions we've had around letting charms provide helpful data such as what sub path a url would be on and such. Just providing a link to the machine:open-port isn't often enough to get the user directly where they need to be. This also would be best if it could transfer

Re: Displaying dashboard URL in juju status

+1 for a feature like this! This would be really usefull for my port-forwarded charms and for all the big data dashboards such as zeppelin. Op woensdag 8 juni 2016 heeft Nobuto Murata het volgende geschreven: > Hi, > > After an OpenStack deployment, its dashboard URL

Re: The CI build time continue to rise alarmingly

Hi Torsten - That fix shouldn't have increased build times unless we also changed the test run to be against Mongo 3.2. If builds are still against 2.4 then the change will have made them slightly faster (because we only drop and recreate the database at the suite level). I don't think we've

Re: A cautionary tale - mgo asserts

On 8 June 2016 at 16:44, Gustavo Niemeyer wrote: > Is it mgo/txn that is internally unmarahalling onto that? > > Let's get that fixed at its heart. Yes, good plan. > On Jun 8, 2016 12:27 PM, "roger peppe" wrote: >> >> The Assert field

Re: A cautionary tale - mgo asserts

Is it mgo/txn that is internally unmarahalling onto that? Let's get that fixed at its heart. On Jun 8, 2016 12:27 PM, "roger peppe" wrote: > The Assert field in mgo/txn.Op is an interface{}, so > when it's marshaled and unmarshaled, the order > can change because

Re: A cautionary tale - mgo asserts

The Assert field in mgo/txn.Op is an interface{}, so when it's marshaled and unmarshaled, the order can change because unmarshaling unmarshals as bson.M which does not preserve key order. https://play.golang.org/p/_1ZPl7iMyn On 8 June 2016 at 15:55, Gustavo Niemeyer

Re: The CI build time continue to rise alarmingly

Hi David, Thanks for raising the inefficiency. >From what I understand there was a change introduced in and around June 1st for https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1573294 that may have increased the time again. :-( As regrettable as this is we did review this with the tech board and it

Announcing the Juju Charmer Summit, 12-14 Sept

Hello everyone, We are happy to announce our third Juju Charmer Summit! We've had a large number of requests to hit the west coast of the US, so this time we'll be in lovely Pasadena, California, 12-14 September: http://summit.juju.solutions As mentioned on the site, this free-to-attend event

Re: A cautionary tale - mgo asserts

Is it mgo itself that is changing the order internally? It should not do that. On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 8:00 AM, roger peppe wrote: > OK, I understand now, I think. > > The underlying problem is that subdocument searches in MongoDB > are order-sensitive. > > For example, I

Re: Juju coming to a DevOpsDays near you

On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 09:35:38 -0400 "Jorge O. Castro" wrote: > > And just another friendly reminder to the list that we do have a > sponsorship budget for these events, so if you have a talk about how > you're using Juju in your field is accepted at a conference please get > in

Re: Model config

On 08/06/16 23:59, roger peppe wrote: > On 8 June 2016 at 10:41, Andrew Wilkins wrote: >> Hi folks, >> >> We're in the midst of making some changes to model configuration in Juju >> 2.0, separating out things that are not model specific from those that are. >> For

Re: Regarding Synnefo environment provider for Juju

Thodoris, Also feel free to join #juju-dev on freenode (IRC) for dynamic assistance. You can reach out to me directly (alexisb) and I will ensure someone provides some help. We look forward to working with you on getting a Juju provider for Synnefo! Alexis On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 4:28 AM,

Re: Model config

On 8 June 2016 at 10:41, Andrew Wilkins wrote: > Hi folks, > > We're in the midst of making some changes to model configuration in Juju > 2.0, separating out things that are not model specific from those that are. > For many things this is very clear-cut, and for

issue for other charms after installing mariadb 5.5

Hi Thanks for below information, after deploying Mariadb 5.5 , we are not able to add any new charm we are getting below error if we deploy any charm after Mariadb 5.5 charm. http://ftp.osuosl.org/pub/mariadb/repo/5.5/ubuntu/dists/trusty/InRelease Unable to find expected entry

Re: Regarding Synnefo environment provider for Juju

Hey Thodoris, Congratulations on beginning your provider! :) Do you have your code visible anywhere? It would help with diagnosing any issues. - Katherine Thodoris Sotiropoulos writes: > Hi all, > > You may remember previous e-mails sent by my partner Stavros >

Re: Model config

On 08/06/16 22:05, Rick Harding wrote: > The danger I think we've tried to avoid with the get/set is that if > you have just model-config you can accidentally mutate the state by > messing up your arguments you pass in via scripts/etc. It also keeps > it consistent across the read/write across the

Re: Model config

The danger I think we've tried to avoid with the get/set is that if you have just model-config you can accidentally mutate the state by messing up your arguments you pass in via scripts/etc. It also keeps it consistent across the read/write across the many things that can change now, applications,

Re: Model config

juju set-model-defaults juju set-model-config juju set-controller-config Have we a strong preference for get/set names, or could we just use "model-config" and "model-defaults" as read/write commands? Mark On 08/06/16 18:41, Andrew Wilkins wrote: > Hi folks, > > We're in the midst of

Regarding Synnefo environment provider for Juju

Hi all, You may remember previous e-mails sent by my partner Stavros Sachtouris regarding the case of implementing a Juju environment provider for our open source IaaS called Synnefo. We have started implementation of the basics (configuration schema, instance creation, instance queries,

Re: A cautionary tale - mgo asserts

You had me at "ruins mongodb", actually just "ruins'. On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 9:04 PM, roger peppe wrote: > This is also relevant (but probably only for larger documents): > > https://jeremywsherman.com/blog/2013/04/23/key-reordering-ruins-mongodb/ > > Another reason to

Re: A cautionary tale - mgo asserts

This is also relevant (but probably only for larger documents): https://jeremywsherman.com/blog/2013/04/23/key-reordering-ruins-mongodb/ Another reason to avoid entire-subdocument matches. On 8 June 2016 at 10:42, Menno Smits wrote: > > > On 8 June 2016 at 21:05, Tim

Re: A cautionary tale - mgo asserts

OK, I understand now, I think. The underlying problem is that subdocument searches in MongoDB are order-sensitive. For example, I just tried this in a mongo shell: > db.foo.insert({_id: "one", x: {a: 1, b: 2}}) > db.foo.find({x: {a: 1, b: 2}}) { "_id" : "one", "x" : { "a" : 1, "b" : 2 } } >

Re: A cautionary tale - mgo asserts

OK, I understand now, I think. The underlying problem is that subdocument searches in MongoDB are order-sensitive. For example, I just tried this in a mongo shell: > db.foo.insert({_id: "one", x: {a: 1, b: 2}}) > db.foo.find({x: {a: 1, b: 2}}) { "_id" : "one", "x" : { "a" : 1, "b" : 2 } } >

Re: Model config

Hello all, I am testing/validating with apt-mirror atm. Doing so my expectation would be to set this at the controller level and have the capacity to override per model (or user). Why ? response staging. People taking the burden of managing mirrors do so to control their environment. Which

Re: A cautionary tale - mgo asserts

> > ... > > > ops := []txn.Op{{ > C: "collection", > Id: ..., > Assert: bson.M{ > "some-field.A": "foo", > "some-field.B": 99, > }, > Update: ... > } > > ... > > > [1] If transaction operations are loaded and used from the DB (more likely >

Re: A cautionary tale - mgo asserts

On 8 June 2016 at 21:05, Tim Penhey wrote: > Hi folks, > > tl;dr: not use structs in transaction asserts > > ... > > The solution is to not use a field struct equality, even though it is easy > to write, but to use the dotted field notation to check the embedded field >

Model config

Hi folks, We're in the midst of making some changes to model configuration in Juju 2.0, separating out things that are not model specific from those that are. For many things this is very clear-cut, and for other things not so much. For example, api-port and state-port are controller-specific,

Re: A cautionary tale - mgo asserts

On 8 June 2016 at 10:05, Tim Penhey wrote: > Hi folks, > > tl;dr: not use structs in transaction asserts > > I have spent the last two days looking at this bug: > https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1537585 > > It was one where the instance poller got itself in a

Re: A cautionary tale - mgo asserts

On 8 June 2016 at 10:05, Tim Penhey wrote: > Hi folks, > > tl;dr: not use structs in transaction asserts > > I have spent the last two days looking at this bug: > https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1537585 > > It was one where the instance poller got itself in a

ceilometer charm issues.

I originally opened a bug for not having a 5.0.3 version. https://bugs.launchpad.net/charms/+source/ceilometer/+bug/1590257 However it was recommended for me to use the proposed branch to test it out. It doesn’t work, I am