-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 102
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: move parse_storage_constraints to the bundle deployer #1105
Conversation
+1. This is breaking our test in OpenSearch. The issue can also be solved by explicitly converting the constraints to their |
9defd9d
to
518657f
Compare
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, but I'd appreciate a review from someone on the Juju team.
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 but I'd like to see a little extra validation and test coverage.
…pe-hint-constraints #1159 #### Description While looking into #1105, I found it useful to type annotate `juju/constraints.py` while figuring out how things work. #### QA Steps There should be no runtime changes in behaviour. Unit and integration tests should continue to pass, especially `tests/unit/test_constraints.py`. #### Notes & Discussion I also broke the longer regexes down across multiple lines and added comments to help me understand them. I don't mind cutting this PR back to use more minimal type annotations, etc if that's deemed more appropriate in review (e.g. Dict[str, Union[int, float, bool]] instead of the custom TypedDicts).
It seems a previous change for allow bundle storage constraints was done at the wrong level and affected regualr storage constraints as well. This fix moves the previous change to only affect bunlde storage constraints.
4e45bc9
to
6ad2da9
Compare
6ad2da9
to
04f9a1d
Compare
/merge |
…fy-handling-of-storage-constraints-in-deploy #1213 #### Description This PR unifies storage constraint parsing into a single method (`juju.constraints.parse_storage_constraints`), which is called in a single place (`juju.model.Model._deploy`), allowing both bundle and model deployments to specify storage constraints using either the [juju storage constraint directive format](https://juju.is/docs/juju/storage-constraint) (e.g. `{'label': 'ebs,100G'}`) or pre-parsed dictionaries (e.g. `{'label': {'count': 1, 'pool': 'ebs', 'size': 102400}`). #### QA Steps Unit tests have been updated to reflect the new parsing location. Integration tests have been added to verify that model deployment can request storage using either format. The existing bundle integration tests should continue to pass. #### Notes & Discussion This PR resolves the issues with storage constraint parsing identified in: - #1052 - #1075 #1052 was initially addressed in #1053, which was included in the [3.5.2.0](https://github.com/juju/python-libjuju/releases/tag/3.5.2.0) release. This allowed bundle deployments (using `juju.bundle.AddApplicationChange.run`) to correctly handle storage constraints specified as strings in the [juju storage constraint directive format](https://juju.is/docs/juju/storage-constraint). Unfortunately, this erroneously required that model deployments (using `juju.model.Model.deploy`) also use this string format, instead of the parsed dictionary format that was previously accepted. This was noticed in #1075 and initially fixed in #1105, which was merged into `main` but never released. This fix moved parsing of storage constraint strings to bundle deployment exclusively. Due to the interim period in which `3.5.2` has (incorrectly) required model deployments to use the string format, I think the best fix at this point is to allow both bundle deployments and model deployments to use either format, and parse them into the parsed dictionary format in a single place in `juju.model.Model._deploy` (the private method called by both bundle and model deployments). After merging, let's look at getting these changes out in a `3.5.2.2` bugfix release.
It seems a previous change for allow bundle storage constraints was done at the wrong level and affected regular storage constraints as well. This fix moves the previous change to only affect bundle storage constraints.
QA Steps
TODO