-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 102
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
Fail to deploy charm with storage parameter #1075
Labels
area/application
hint/3.x
going on main branch
kind/bug
indicates a bug in the project
state/in-progress
currently being worked on
Comments
1 task
@cderici -- i'm also affected by this i tries switching to the new style of arguments: storage = {
"osd-devices": "8G,1",
"osd-journals": "8G,1",
} and that breaks when it tries parse these as if storage:
storage = {
k: client.Constraints(**v)
for k, v in storage.items()
} |
hmlanigan
added
kind/bug
indicates a bug in the project
area/application
in progress
hint/3.x
going on main branch
labels
Aug 1, 2024
1 task
1 task
james-garner-canonical
added
state/in-progress
currently being worked on
and removed
in progress
labels
Sep 23, 2024
jujubot
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 26, 2024
…fy-handling-of-storage-constraints-in-deploy #1213 #### Description This PR unifies storage constraint parsing into a single method (`juju.constraints.parse_storage_constraints`), which is called in a single place (`juju.model.Model._deploy`), allowing both bundle and model deployments to specify storage constraints using either the [juju storage constraint directive format](https://juju.is/docs/juju/storage-constraint) (e.g. `{'label': 'ebs,100G'}`) or pre-parsed dictionaries (e.g. `{'label': {'count': 1, 'pool': 'ebs', 'size': 102400}`). #### QA Steps Unit tests have been updated to reflect the new parsing location. Integration tests have been added to verify that model deployment can request storage using either format. The existing bundle integration tests should continue to pass. #### Notes & Discussion This PR resolves the issues with storage constraint parsing identified in: - #1052 - #1075 #1052 was initially addressed in #1053, which was included in the [3.5.2.0](https://github.com/juju/python-libjuju/releases/tag/3.5.2.0) release. This allowed bundle deployments (using `juju.bundle.AddApplicationChange.run`) to correctly handle storage constraints specified as strings in the [juju storage constraint directive format](https://juju.is/docs/juju/storage-constraint). Unfortunately, this erroneously required that model deployments (using `juju.model.Model.deploy`) also use this string format, instead of the parsed dictionary format that was previously accepted. This was noticed in #1075 and initially fixed in #1105, which was merged into `main` but never released. This fix moved parsing of storage constraint strings to bundle deployment exclusively. Due to the interim period in which `3.5.2` has (incorrectly) required model deployments to use the string format, I think the best fix at this point is to allow both bundle deployments and model deployments to use either format, and parse them into the parsed dictionary format in a single place in `juju.model.Model._deploy` (the private method called by both bundle and model deployments). After merging, let's look at getting these changes out in a `3.5.2.2` bugfix release.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
area/application
hint/3.x
going on main branch
kind/bug
indicates a bug in the project
state/in-progress
currently being worked on
Description
Trying to update libjuju from 3.5.0.0 to 3.5.2.0 breaks tests setting the storage parameter during deploy. Example CI run can be seen here. Deploying a locally build charm with:
Will result in:
Trying to deploy something like:
Fails different validation:
I think the issue is caused by the additional validation added in model.py L2119
Urgency
Annoying bug in our test suite
Python-libjuju version
3.5.2.0
Juju version
3.4.4
Reproduce / Test
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: