-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 49
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
Add smtp relation interface #126
Conversation
@PietroPasotti @simskij @gruyaume , can you please review? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nothing a good linter won't fix for you, but we're not there yet
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
one more thingy I missed, my bad
Co-authored-by: PietroPasotti <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
Please add a description to the PR. I.e. What am I reviewing here and why? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
(as mentioned before)
Please add a description to the PR.
@arturo-seijas I'm going to be a grumpy old man for a second and double down on what @gruyaume said: you're requesting our review time (maybe 20-30 minutes each), so if you could please put in a decent amount of effort on the PR description to set context, that would be much appreciated. Simply saying "Add SMTP interface definition" doesn't add anything significant over the PR title. It may only need to be two or three sentences. Something like:
All this might "go without saying" from your point of view, but for reviewers being pulled in, context and links like that are very helpful. Also worth considering when tagging people for review is to say why you're asking them. It's somewhat obvious why you would want to tag Charm Tech (@canonical/charm-tech), but perhaps "@PietroPasotti could you please review the Scenario tests specifically? And @gruyaume we'd love your take as I know the Telco team has used SMTP in the past." (or whatever reason) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A few comments that tbh are more from someone long in the email world than specifically charm-tech comments :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks great! Thanks for making those adjustments. One tiny nit and one I assume accidental file add.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good to me now (that definitely get @simskij's final review). And thanks for the update to the PR description.
Add SMTP interface definition, as implemented by the SMTP integrator charm. A sample charm consuming this interface can be found here.
This relation interface defines how the SMTP details are shared with the required charm. Note that it supports both Juju Secrets and no secrets for legacy charms.
The spec defining this interface can be found here