On 24.01.2017 16:56, Alex Kavanagh wrote:
> Hi Tilman
>
> (I'm not an expert here, but was staring at the docs)
>
> I suspect that your peers relationship should be unit if each peer needs
> to have it's own conversation? Otherwise, with a global scope, every
> peer will overwrite the other's in
At this point I'm pretty sure that this is a bug or undocumented feature.
The peer relation of a subordinate charm only has one conversation.
Despite scope being 'global' in metadata.yaml and the RelationBase class
being scope = scope.UNIT.
Either I'm wrong to expect this to work and subordinate
Hi Tilman
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Tilman Baumann <
tilman.baum...@canonical.com> wrote:
> At this point I'm pretty sure that this is a bug or undocumented feature.
>
>
> The peer relation of a subordinate charm only has one conversation.
> Despite scope being 'global' in metadata.yaml a
On 25 January 2017 at 18:43, Tilman Baumann
wrote:
> At this point I'm pretty sure that this is a bug or undocumented feature.
>
>
> The peer relation of a subordinate charm only has one conversation.
> Despite scope being 'global' in metadata.yaml and the RelationBase class
> being scope = scope
On 25.01.2017 13:06, Alex Kavanagh wrote:
> Hi Tilman
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Tilman Baumann
> mailto:tilman.baum...@canonical.com>> wrote:
>
> At this point I'm pretty sure that this is a bug or undocumented
> feature.
>
>
> The peer relation of a subordinate charm
On 25.01.2017 13:16, Stuart Bishop wrote:
> On 25 January 2017 at 18:43, Tilman Baumann
> I don't know why your peer relation (with global scope) starts
> misbehaving after you add the container scoped juju-info relation to
> turn your charm into a subordinate. It might be helpful to inspect the
>
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Tilman Baumann <
tilman.baum...@canonical.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 25.01.2017 13:06, Alex Kavanagh wrote:
> > Hi Tilman
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Tilman Baumann
> > mailto:tilman.baum...@canonical.com>>
> wrote:
> >
> > At this point I'm pretty sure
This is one of the areas we're going to improve with Reactive 2.0, where
the relation scope will be obsoleted as it's confusing and doesn't add much
value to the overall framework.
Updates and plans regarding that will be available soon!
Marco
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 8:40 AM Alex Kavanagh
wrote
On 25.01.2017 14:24, Tilman Baumann wrote:
> On 25.01.2017 13:16, Stuart Bishop wrote:
>> On 25 January 2017 at 18:43, Tilman Baumann
>
>> I don't know why your peer relation (with global scope) starts
>> misbehaving after you add the container scoped juju-info relation to
>> turn your charm into
Trying to use the peers interface to coordinate all units of an application
to know about each other, I find myself feeling like this should be a built
in functionality. In other words, "tell me who my peers are" shouldn't turn
into a giant milestone for every charm who needs to know what peers it
On 25.01.2017 15:49, Tilman Baumann wrote:
> On 25.01.2017 14:24, Tilman Baumann wrote:
>> On 25.01.2017 13:16, Stuart Bishop wrote:
>>> On 25 January 2017 at 18:43, Tilman Baumann
>>
>>> I don't know why your peer relation (with global scope) starts
>>> misbehaving after you add the container scop
Greetings!
The ~containers team took a stroll through the review queue today and
reviewed several submissions. We had some findings and the full report can
be found below:
ZNC Charm Review: (Disapprove Vote)
By @cynerva
Had a look through the ZNC charm submitted by adam-stokes. The charm looks
12 matches
Mail list logo
