Skip to content
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

fix(application): caas model application status to respect equivalent severity #17699

Merged

Conversation

carlcsaposs-canonical
Copy link

When selecting between operator and application statuses with the same severity level (e.g. both waiting) on a caas model Juju selects the operator status instead of the application status, which is likely more relevant, as reported by https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju/+bug/2038833/comments/2

Builds on the changes in PR #17572

Checklist

  • Code style: imports ordered, good names, simple structure, etc
  • Comments saying why design decisions were made
  • Go unit tests, with comments saying what you're testing
  • [ ] Integration tests, with comments saying what you're testing
  • [ ] doc.go added or updated in changed packages

QA steps

Using the reproducer in the error report:

1. git clone https://github.com/carlcsaposs-canonical/bug-report-juju-status-overrides-charm-app-status.git
2. git checkout waiting
3. charmcraft pack
4. juju bootstrap microk8s deleteme
5. juju deploy ./bar_ubuntu-22.04-amd64.charm -n 3
6. <Wait for idle>
7. juju refresh bar --path ./bar_ubuntu-22.04-amd64.charm
8. juju status --watch 1s

Actual behavior (without this change) "bar" app status flickers between waiting status "installing agent" and waiting status "upgrading unit ..."

Expected behavior (with this change) "bar" app status stays at waiting status "upgrading unit ..."

Links

Launchpad bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju/+bug/2038833/comments/2

@jujubot
Copy link
Collaborator

jujubot commented Jul 10, 2024

Thanks for opening a pull request! Please follow the instructions here to ensure your pull request is ready for review. Then, a maintainer will review your patch.

@hpidcock @anvial

8 similar comments
@jujubot
Copy link
Collaborator

jujubot commented Jul 10, 2024

Thanks for opening a pull request! Please follow the instructions here to ensure your pull request is ready for review. Then, a maintainer will review your patch.

@hpidcock @anvial

@jujubot
Copy link
Collaborator

jujubot commented Jul 10, 2024

Thanks for opening a pull request! Please follow the instructions here to ensure your pull request is ready for review. Then, a maintainer will review your patch.

@hpidcock @anvial

@jujubot
Copy link
Collaborator

jujubot commented Jul 10, 2024

Thanks for opening a pull request! Please follow the instructions here to ensure your pull request is ready for review. Then, a maintainer will review your patch.

@hpidcock @anvial

@jujubot
Copy link
Collaborator

jujubot commented Jul 10, 2024

Thanks for opening a pull request! Please follow the instructions here to ensure your pull request is ready for review. Then, a maintainer will review your patch.

@hpidcock @anvial

@jujubot
Copy link
Collaborator

jujubot commented Jul 10, 2024

Thanks for opening a pull request! Please follow the instructions here to ensure your pull request is ready for review. Then, a maintainer will review your patch.

@hpidcock @anvial

@jujubot
Copy link
Collaborator

jujubot commented Jul 10, 2024

Thanks for opening a pull request! Please follow the instructions here to ensure your pull request is ready for review. Then, a maintainer will review your patch.

@hpidcock @anvial

@jujubot
Copy link
Collaborator

jujubot commented Jul 10, 2024

Thanks for opening a pull request! Please follow the instructions here to ensure your pull request is ready for review. Then, a maintainer will review your patch.

@hpidcock @anvial

@jujubot
Copy link
Collaborator

jujubot commented Jul 10, 2024

Thanks for opening a pull request! Please follow the instructions here to ensure your pull request is ready for review. Then, a maintainer will review your patch.

@hpidcock @anvial

@hpidcock hpidcock added the 3.5 label Jul 10, 2024
@hpidcock
Copy link
Member

/build

@carlcsaposs-canonical carlcsaposs-canonical force-pushed the waiting-status-override-bug-2038833 branch from 38e5ff3 to 257f4f2 Compare July 11, 2024 07:24
@carlcsaposs-canonical
Copy link
Author

(force pushed to fix commit message body line length so that https://github.com/juju/juju/actions/runs/9870702234/job/27292022823#step:4:17 passes)

@wallyworld
Copy link
Member

/build

@wallyworld
Copy link
Member

@carlcsaposs-canonical thanks for the fix, are you able to sign your commit? That's now a requirement.

… severity

When selecting between operator and application statuses with the same severity level (e.g. both
waiting) on a caas model Juju selects the operator status instead of the application status, which
is likely more relevant, as reported by https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju/+bug/2038833/comments/2

Builds on the changes in PR #17572
@carlcsaposs-canonical
Copy link
Author

hi @wallyworld! I believe the commit is now signed

@hpidcock
Copy link
Member

/build

@wallyworld
Copy link
Member

/merge

@jujubot jujubot merged commit 98a476f into juju:3.5 Sep 24, 2024
25 of 27 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants