And after further reading I realized I scanned the last few emails on the thread and did not read the thread originators core problem they wanted to solve.
I apologize for my haste in response, and will graciously remove myself from the conversation. On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Charles Butler < [email protected]> wrote: > This has been a focus of the charm audit that we have been performing. > Charms are getting flagged for a multitude of reasons that include: > > - immutable configuration parameters > - ppa's that don't adopt trusty support > - general practices we would want to see changed. > > All these findings are getting filed in launchpad against the charm > flagged with the 'audit' tag. > > If any of these bugs that are found in charms in the wild, I sincerely > encourage you to file a bug against the charm so the maintainer has an > opportunity to fix it, or properly respond to the situation where they/we > can address it. Either through documentation updates, or code > contributions. It's also a good practice to get and maintain a pulse check > with the charm author, to ensure we're keeping a vibrant and communicating > community. > > As we move forward, there will be a focus on testing charms, and new > charms submitted without tests that exercise all parameters of a charm (and > verify they are not immutable, for example) would be sent back to the > author to be properly tested before inclusion to the store to help mitigate > issues like this. > > I hope this helps clear some of the fog away from the current efforts to > ensure we are offering the highest of quality,as we grow the quantity of > charms in the store. > > > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 5:06 AM, Mark Shuttleworth <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On 27/03/14 16:54, Sameer Zeidat wrote: >> >> Juju by design does not enforce parameter changes. It's basically up to >> the charm writer to apply the change or silently ignore it. Juju, and hence >> the GUI, will accept the change and store it regardless. >> >> Since juju has no notion of "read-only" parameters, it's the charm >> writer's job to document which of his parameters are only used during >> installation, and which are available to change afterwards. Many times >> you'll end up learnig how a parameter change is handled by trial, or by >> looking inside the charm hook script. >> >> >> That reflects the issue, but... >> >> It's a fair point that we could design for better feedback of such >> non-editable parameters. >> >> Mark >> >> -- >> Juju mailing list >> [email protected] >> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju >> >> >
-- Juju mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
