juju-core

Merge lp:~axwalk/juju-core/lp1203935-ec2-octal-prices into lp:~go-bot/juju-core/trunk

  1. lp1203935-ec2-octal-prices
  2. Merge into trunk
Proposed by Andrew Wilkins
Status: Merged
Approved by: Andrew Wilkins
Approved revision: no longer in the source branch.
Merged at revision: 1519
Proposed branch: lp:~axwalk/juju-core/lp1203935-ec2-octal-prices
Merge into: lp:~go-bot/juju-core/trunk
Diff against target: 48 lines (+5/-5)
1 file modified
environs/ec2/instancetype.go (+5/-5)
To merge this branch: bzr merge lp:~axwalk/juju-core/lp1203935-ec2-octal-prices
Reviewer Review Type Date Requested Status
Juju Engineering Pending
Review via email: mp+176315@code.launchpad.net

Commit message

Correct EC2 instance pricing (octal->decimal)

Some prices were entered in octal. This fixes that.

https://codereview.appspot.com/11419046/

Description of the change

Correct EC2 instance pricing (octal->decimal)

Some prices were entered in octal. This fixes that.

https://codereview.appspot.com/11419046/

To post a comment you must log in.
Revision history for this message
Andrew Wilkins (axwalk) wrote :

Reviewers: mp+176315_code.launchpad.net,

Message:
Please take a look.

Description:
Correct EC2 instance pricing (octal->decimal)

Some prices were entered in octal. This fixes that.

https://code.launchpad.net/~axwalk/juju-core/lp1203935-ec2-octal-prices/+merge/176315

(do not edit description out of merge proposal)

Please review this at https://codereview.appspot.com/11419046/

Affected files:
   A [revision details]
   M environs/ec2/instancetype.go

Index: [revision details]
=== added file '[revision details]'
--- [revision details] 2012-01-01 00:00:00 +0000
+++ [revision details] 2012-01-01 00:00:00 +0000
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+Old revision: tarmac-20130723031013-rutwe89s8u7anok1
+New revision: <email address hidden>

Index: environs/ec2/instancetype.go
=== modified file 'environs/ec2/instancetype.go'
--- environs/ec2/instancetype.go 2013-05-15 02:06:51 +0000
+++ environs/ec2/instancetype.go 2013-07-23 03:47:45 +0000
@@ -191,7 +191,7 @@
    "m1.xlarge": 640,
    "m3.xlarge": 700,
    "m3.2xlarge": 1400,
- "t1.micro": 020,
+ "t1.micro": 20,
    "m2.xlarge": 495,
    "m2.2xlarge": 990,
    "m2.4xlarge": 1980,
@@ -205,7 +205,7 @@
    "m1.xlarge": 640,
    "m3.xlarge": 700,
    "m3.2xlarge": 1400,
- "t1.micro": 020,
+ "t1.micro": 20,
    "m2.xlarge": 495,
    "m2.2xlarge": 990,
    "m2.4xlarge": 1980,
@@ -219,7 +219,7 @@
    "m1.xlarge": 520,
    "m3.xlarge": 550,
    "m3.2xlarge": 1100,
- "t1.micro": 020,
+ "t1.micro": 20,
    "m2.xlarge": 460,
    "m2.2xlarge": 920,
    "m2.4xlarge": 1840,
@@ -234,7 +234,7 @@
    "m1.medium": 160,
    "m1.large": 320,
    "m1.xlarge": 640,
- "t1.micro": 027,
+ "t1.micro": 27,
    "m2.xlarge": 540,
    "m2.2xlarge": 1080,
    "m2.4xlarge": 2160,
@@ -282,7 +282,7 @@
    "m1.xlarge": 480,
    "m3.xlarge": 500,
    "m3.2xlarge": 1000,
- "t1.micro": 020,
+ "t1.micro": 20,
    "m2.xlarge": 410,
    "m2.2xlarge": 820,
    "m2.4xlarge": 1640,

Revision history for this message
Andrew Wilkins (axwalk) wrote :

On 2013/07/23 04:46:22, dfc wrote:
> On 2013/07/23 04:39:06, axw wrote:
> > Please take a look.

> Is there a test that covers this ?

There is not. How would you test it without duplicating the numbers?

https://codereview.appspot.com/11419046/

Revision history for this message
Jeroen T. Vermeulen (jtv) wrote :

On 2013/07/23 05:13:38, axw1 wrote:
> On 2013/07/23 04:46:22, dfc wrote:
> > On 2013/07/23 04:39:06, axw wrote:
> > > Please take a look.
> >
> > Is there a test that covers this ?

> There is not. How would you test it without duplicating the numbers?

Nor is it likely to matter much: IIRC this change doesn't raise the
prices above any others in the same respective regions, in which case I
don't think it'll affect instance-type selection. But definitely good
to be rid of this little particle of weirdness before it starts serving
as a bad example. LGTM, with thanks.

https://codereview.appspot.com/11419046/

Revision history for this message
Roger Peppe (rogpeppe) wrote :

LGTM, assuming you've verified that the new prices
bear some resemblance to reality.

thanks!

https://codereview.appspot.com/11419046/

Preview Diff

[H/L] Next/Prev Comment, [J/K] Next/Prev File, [N/P] Next/Prev Hunk
1=== modified file 'environs/ec2/instancetype.go'
2--- environs/ec2/instancetype.go 2013-05-15 02:06:51 +0000
3+++ environs/ec2/instancetype.go 2013-07-23 04:00:37 +0000
4@@ -191,7 +191,7 @@
5 "m1.xlarge": 640,
6 "m3.xlarge": 700,
7 "m3.2xlarge": 1400,
8- "t1.micro": 020,
9+ "t1.micro": 20,
10 "m2.xlarge": 495,
11 "m2.2xlarge": 990,
12 "m2.4xlarge": 1980,
13@@ -205,7 +205,7 @@
14 "m1.xlarge": 640,
15 "m3.xlarge": 700,
16 "m3.2xlarge": 1400,
17- "t1.micro": 020,
18+ "t1.micro": 20,
19 "m2.xlarge": 495,
20 "m2.2xlarge": 990,
21 "m2.4xlarge": 1980,
22@@ -219,7 +219,7 @@
23 "m1.xlarge": 520,
24 "m3.xlarge": 550,
25 "m3.2xlarge": 1100,
26- "t1.micro": 020,
27+ "t1.micro": 20,
28 "m2.xlarge": 460,
29 "m2.2xlarge": 920,
30 "m2.4xlarge": 1840,
31@@ -234,7 +234,7 @@
32 "m1.medium": 160,
33 "m1.large": 320,
34 "m1.xlarge": 640,
35- "t1.micro": 027,
36+ "t1.micro": 27,
37 "m2.xlarge": 540,
38 "m2.2xlarge": 1080,
39 "m2.4xlarge": 2160,
40@@ -282,7 +282,7 @@
41 "m1.xlarge": 480,
42 "m3.xlarge": 500,
43 "m3.2xlarge": 1000,
44- "t1.micro": 020,
45+ "t1.micro": 20,
46 "m2.xlarge": 410,
47 "m2.2xlarge": 820,
48 "m2.4xlarge": 1640,

Subscribers

People subscribed via source and target branches

to status/vote changes: