-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 122
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Validate config option existence in testing harness #635
Merged
jnsgruk
merged 5 commits into
canonical:main
from
jnsgruk:validate-config-keys-in-testing
Oct 15, 2021
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
416f53e
Initial implementation of ensuring that update_config raises an excep…
jnsgruk b9abf45
Address feedback; make behaviour more consistent with Juju
jnsgruk 0dc878c
Minor refactor, add a test for unsetting a boolean config item that d…
jnsgruk d937d73
Merge branch 'main' into validate-config-keys-in-testing
jnsgruk 6bb36ad
Merge branch 'main' into validate-config-keys-in-testing
jnsgruk File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks suspect, as the logic here has changed in more ways than the PR is describing.
Before, the key would always be updated. Now the key will only be updated if the value is not None, which doesn't seem intentional. If that's intentional, why, and if it's not, I think it should be reverted or at least well understood.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This change is intentional. Per the discussion, we exclude keys with a null value from the config object that the framework tracks. This matches Juju's current behavior.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yep, reading this again, this was definitely intentional.
is not None
specifically allows for people settingsomeValue: False
in the config, which is obviously valid :)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't see that intentional change being clearly described, neither in code, nor in the PR description, nor in tests. So it at least doesn't look very intentional.
Perhaps I'm missing something?