Code review comment for lp:~dimitern/juju-core/002-bug-1101140-ignore-unknown-relations
Revision history for this message
| Dimiter Naydenov (dimitern) wrote | # |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
0e1f616
(Get the code!)
Please take a look.
https:/
File worker/
https:/
worker/
On 2013/02/25 10:31:57, fwereade wrote:
> Now the upgrade is complete, we'll need to check all relations again:
some might
> previously have been skipped (if they involved endpoints only
implemented in the
> new charm).
Done.
https:/
File worker/
https:/
worker/
On 2013/02/25 10:31:57, fwereade wrote:
> Nope, this is just a straight-up error, I think. We don't have any way
of
> resolving it, or reporting it, it's true; but panicking won't improve
matters
> so... ;).
Done.
https:/
worker/
On 2013/02/25 10:31:57, fwereade wrote:
> Nope, this is just a straight-up error, I think. We don't have any way
of
> resolving it, or reporting it, it's true; but panicking won't improve
matters
> so... ;).
Done.
https:/
worker/
implemented relation endpoint %q", ep)
On 2013/02/25 10:31:57, fwereade wrote:
> "skipping relation with unknown endpoint"?
Done.
https:/
File worker/
https:/
worker/
*context) {
On 2013/02/25 10:31:57, fwereade wrote:
> (c, ctx, path) feels neater to me, but YMMV
Done.
https:/
worker/
addRelation (?!)
On 2013/02/25 10:31:57, fwereade wrote:
> This test does an add-relation as quickly as possible after an
upgrade-charm, in
> the hope that the scheduler will deliver the events in the wrong
order. The
> observed behaviour should be the same in either case.
Done.
https:/
worker/
db2:0"},
On 2013/02/25 10:31:57, fwereade wrote:
> May as well stick those steps together.
Done.
https:/