https://codereview.appspot.com/13908044/diff/1/state/apiserver/uniter/uniter.go#oldcode797
state/apiserver/uniter/uniter.go:797: // All relation settings should be
strings.
On 2013/09/26 16:11:52, fwereade wrote:
> Hmm. This is almost legitimate-panic territory. Best not, since we're
running in
> the API server and will cause a lot of collateral damage, but I think
we should
> at least error out -- if it happens, we're clearly not in Kansas any
more.
Please take a look.
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/13908044/ diff/1/ state/api/ uniter/ unit.go uniter/ unit.go (right):
File state/api/
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/13908044/ diff/1/ state/api/ uniter/ unit.go# newcode143 uniter/ unit.go: 143: return interface{ }(result. Settings) , nil result. Settings) ?
state/api/
map[string]
On 2013/09/26 16:11:52, fwereade wrote:
> can you not do charm.Settings(
Done.
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/13908044/ diff/1/ state/apiserver /uniter/ uniter. go /uniter/ uniter. go (left):
File state/apiserver
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/13908044/ diff/1/ state/apiserver /uniter/ uniter. go#oldcode797 /uniter/ uniter. go:797: // All relation settings should be
state/apiserver
strings.
On 2013/09/26 16:11:52, fwereade wrote:
> Hmm. This is almost legitimate-panic territory. Best not, since we're
running in
> the API server and will cause a lot of collateral damage, but I think
we should
> at least error out -- if it happens, we're clearly not in Kansas any
more.
Done. Also added a couple of tests for the error.
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/13908044/