Code review comment for lp:~wallyworld/juju-core/fix-instance-type-matching

Revision history for this message
Ian Booth (wallyworld) wrote :

Please take a look.

https://codereview.appspot.com/58950043/diff/40001/environs/instances/instancetype.go
File environs/instances/instancetype.go (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/58950043/diff/40001/environs/instances/instancetype.go#newcode98
environs/instances/instancetype.go:98: // (previously an instance type
with largest available memory was returned even if it didn't
On 2014/02/10 08:27:13, dimitern wrote:
> I don't think we need to explain how it was previously.

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/58950043/diff/40001/environs/instances/instancetype.go#newcode98
environs/instances/instancetype.go:98: // (previously an instance type
with largest available memory was returned even if it didn't
On 2014/02/10 08:27:13, dimitern wrote:
> I don't think we need to explain how it was previously.

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/58950043/diff/40001/environs/instances/instancetype.go#newcode105
environs/instances/instancetype.go:105: minMemCons := ic.Constraints
On 2014/02/10 08:27:13, dimitern wrote:
> Why not just:
> cons.Mem = uint64(minMemoryHeuristic)
> ?

Yeah, i refactored some stuff and left it in a bad state. Fixed. It does
need to be a pointer but there's no need for the intermediate object.

https://codereview.appspot.com/58950043/diff/40001/environs/instances/instancetype_test.go
File environs/instances/instancetype_test.go (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/58950043/diff/40001/environs/instances/instancetype_test.go#newcode155
environs/instances/instancetype_test.go:155: about: "small mem
specified, use that even though less than needed for mongodb",
On 2014/02/10 08:27:13, dimitern wrote:
> I think if the user overrode our minimum memory heuristic, we should
at least
> print out a warning, saying bootstrap might fail due to insufficient
memory for
> mongo.

Not sure about that. The user could also specify poorly speced systems
for charms and we don't emit anything there. This behaviour, allowing
the user to specify small memory, is not new - the tests are just being
improved. We have never in the past emitted a warning AFAIK.

https://codereview.appspot.com/58950043/

« Back to merge proposal