Rietveld Code Review Tool
Help | Bug tracker | Discussion group | Source code | Sign in
(1080)

Issue 7030061: uniter: subordinate units handle relation death

Can't Edit
Can't Publish+Mail
Start Review
Created:
11 years, 3 months ago by fwereade
Modified:
11 years, 3 months ago
Reviewers:
TheMue, mp+141897, rog
Visibility:
Public.

Description

uniter: subordinate units handle relation death https://code.launchpad.net/~fwereade/juju-core/omg-destroy-subordinates/+merge/141897 Requires: https://code.launchpad.net/~fwereade/juju-core/omg-subordinates/+merge/141737 (do not edit description out of merge proposal)

Patch Set 1 #

Total comments: 7

Patch Set 2 : uniter: subordinate units handle relation death #

Total comments: 3

Patch Set 3 : uniter: subordinate units handle relation death #

Unified diffs Side-by-side diffs Delta from patch set Stats (+92 lines, -5 lines) Patch
A [revision details] View 1 2 1 chunk +2 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download
M worker/uniter/uniter.go View 1 1 chunk +18 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download
M worker/uniter/uniter_test.go View 1 2 4 chunks +72 lines, -5 lines 0 comments Download

Messages

Total messages: 6
fwereade
Please take a look.
11 years, 3 months ago (2013-01-04 11:34:05 UTC) #1
rog
looks good, with some comments below. https://codereview.appspot.com/7030061/diff/1/worker/uniter/uniter.go File worker/uniter/uniter.go (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/7030061/diff/1/worker/uniter/uniter.go#newcode396 worker/uniter/uniter.go:396: if !u.unit.IsPrincipal() { ...
11 years, 3 months ago (2013-01-08 16:17:50 UTC) #2
TheMue
LGTM, only supporting Rogers hint. https://codereview.appspot.com/7030061/diff/1/worker/uniter/uniter.go File worker/uniter/uniter.go (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/7030061/diff/1/worker/uniter/uniter.go#newcode396 worker/uniter/uniter.go:396: if !u.unit.IsPrincipal() { On ...
11 years, 3 months ago (2013-01-08 16:25:58 UTC) #3
fwereade
Please take a look. https://codereview.appspot.com/7030061/diff/1/worker/uniter/uniter.go File worker/uniter/uniter.go (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/7030061/diff/1/worker/uniter/uniter.go#newcode396 worker/uniter/uniter.go:396: if !u.unit.IsPrincipal() { On 2013/01/08 ...
11 years, 3 months ago (2013-01-08 17:24:25 UTC) #4
rog
LGTM https://codereview.appspot.com/7030061/diff/7001/worker/uniter/uniter_test.go File worker/uniter/uniter_test.go (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/7030061/diff/7001/worker/uniter/uniter_test.go#newcode716 worker/uniter/uniter_test.go:716: step(c, ctx, addCharm{dir, curl}) much nicer, thanks! https://codereview.appspot.com/7030061/diff/7001/worker/uniter/uniter_test.go#newcode816 ...
11 years, 3 months ago (2013-01-08 17:46:41 UTC) #5
fwereade
11 years, 3 months ago (2013-01-08 22:59:54 UTC) #6
*** Submitted:

uniter: subordinate units handle relation death

R=rog, TheMue
CC=
https://codereview.appspot.com/7030061

https://codereview.appspot.com/7030061/diff/7001/worker/uniter/uniter_test.go
File worker/uniter/uniter_test.go (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/7030061/diff/7001/worker/uniter/uniter_test.go...
worker/uniter/uniter_test.go:816: coretesting.Server.ResponseMap(1, ctx.charms)
On 2013/01/08 17:46:42, rog wrote:
> serving the charm for exactly one request seems to me to be a little fragile
> (what if the implementation makes some other request first?), but we'll leave
it
> be for now, as it's established.

It was established in the first place to check that the uniter doesn't waste
time redownloading charms it's already got; I think that's still a sensible
thing to verify.
Sign in to reply to this message.

Powered by Google App Engine
RSS Feeds Recent Issues | This issue
This is Rietveld f62528b