On 20/07/2015, Tim Penhey tim.pen...@canonical.com wrote:
Earlier today I was investigating this CRITICAL BLOCKER bug:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1475724
At first I thought that bug was referring to a different one, which I
fixed by skipping a part of a test that was
On 20/07/15 07:57, William Reade wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Tim Penhey tim.pen...@canonical.com
mailto:tim.pen...@canonical.com wrote:
Hi folks,
Earlier today I was investigating this CRITICAL BLOCKER bug:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1475724
On 20/07/2015, Martin Packman martin.pack...@canonical.com wrote:
So, I'm not sure what bugs we want to file to track the work to get
master in a good state. As best as I can work out we have:
Okay, becoming clearer now,
1) Windows regression from uniter-status change:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 12:42 AM Tim Penhey tim.pen...@canonical.com
wrote:
Aside from all this work, it is becoming REALLY IMPORTANT that we stop
writing terrible, wasteful, full integration type tests when what we
really care about testing is some aspect of uniter internals. I know
that it
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:57 AM roger peppe rogpe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 July 2015 at 14:11, Martin Packman martin.pack...@canonical.com
wrote:
The logs are giant,
the actual failure lines tend to be non-informative with the real
cause several screens up in the log, multiple tests
# juju-core 1.24.3
A new proposed stable release of Juju, juju-core 1.24.3, is now available.
This release may replace version 1.24.2 on Monday July 27.
## Getting Juju
juju-core 1.24.3 is available for Wily and backported to earlier
series in the following PPA:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 4:57 PM, roger peppe rogpe...@gmail.com wrote:
That's somewhat harder with the uniter, because its very state-dependent
channel operations make it awkward to write a uniform outer select loop.
If I were to do it, off the top of my head, I might consider making
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 3:05 PM roger peppe roger.pe...@canonical.com
wrote:
On 20 July 2015 at 19:41, Nate Finch nate.fi...@canonical.com wrote:
You should be able to get to 80% code coverage (and near 100% logic
coverage)
without using anything outside your package.
Shouldn't those
