[00:57] veebers: do we need to be able to build on go 1.8 any more? Is it safe for me to use a type alias? [00:58] I don't absolutely need it, would just simplify some tests I'm writing that need to pass around a lot of funcs taking map[corelease.Key]corelease.Info. [01:09] babbageclunk: m not veebers, but I do not think so... should 1.10 be backward compatible anyway? i would have though we only have 1 mayb 2 releases in 1.9 like 2.1 and mayb 2.2 ... [01:11] anastasiamac: well, I'm trying to use syntax that was introduced in 1.10, and I *vaguely* remember someone needing to remove a type alias for some reason... not sure whether it's still needed. [01:11] babbageclunk: ah.. ur memory is better than mine :) [01:12] oh sorry, introduced in 1.9 [01:16] babbageclunk: my first feeling is "no, don't worry about prev go vesions" :) we r on 1.10, developing for 1.10 and ci uses 1.10 as well... [01:18] babbageclunk: sorry I'm AFK for the arvo. Um yeah I agree with anastasiamac go with 1.10, especially on develop. I can't think of a reason to need 1.8 compat at this stage [01:28] veebers: oh right, forgot sorry! Thanks both of you - I'll use it then. Worst case, I can remove it if needed later. === CyberJacob_ is now known as CyberJacob === jacekn_ is now known as jacekn [08:57] manadart: when you've got a sec https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/8945 [09:39] stickupkid: Commented. [09:40] manadart: so rick noted that he wanted to see this, but having done it, I'm with you, I just think it was a safety net that said if you wanted clustering, then we can make sure that we're talking the same thing [09:42] stickupkid: If your server is clustered, then its API supports clustering (> 3.0). [09:42] I'd put it on ice and talk to Rick when he's better. [09:44] manadart: i think this is superfluous in the end, and by the very nature the underlying nature will return false for everything < 3.0 [09:44] stickupkid: Ja. [10:05] cory_fu: I'm not sure if this is the same issue I saw before? https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/XrByccMWyd/ . I think here the relation is gone (it is during teardown), and the endpoint lookup returns None, and it falls over [10:09] Actually, the failure is in the install hook so the relation certainly doesn't exist at that point [10:23] cory_fu: https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/fR8kjtvJQT/ does work, and is better anyway. But it would be nice if we could handle this better. [10:26] Would be ugly though. [10:29] some special case rule 'if the handler accepts a single, required parameter and the relation used for RelationBase style handler invokation is None, skip calling the handler' [10:29] Or fail better if silently skipping isn't an option. [10:31] Maybe better for endpoint_from_state to never to return None if a suitable relation is defined, even if it hasn't been joined yet. === wpk_ is now known as wpk [14:13] Dmitrii-Sh: your PR failed with ProxyUpdaterSuite.TestSnapProxyConfig [14:13] link http://ci.jujucharms.com/job/github-check-merge-juju/2412/consoleFull [14:19] stickupkid: ok, I will check the test out and modify it [14:19] stickupkid: should be easy enough [14:22] externalreality: manadart: now that we have a hash, you're building the snap into the 2.4 or latest candidate channel? [14:24] jam: I believe it will go to candidate channel in the 2.4 track. === ryebot_ is now known as ryebot [14:55] Hello, I've installed charm 2.3.0 and charm-tools 2.2.4 and I'm trying to create a simple charm using command "charm create vanilla", is that supposed to still work? I am unable to get it to work, I keep getting "TypeError: a bytes-like object is required, not 'str'" in /snap/charm/158/lib/python3.5/site-packages/charmtools/templates/reactive_python/template.py [15:41] stickupkid: just modified the PR [16:17] Juju cloud instructions for setting up a LXD Cluster can be found here: https://discourse.jujucharms.com/t/setting-up-lxd-cluster-as-a-juju-cloud/73 [17:02] stickupkid: woot! [17:02] rick_h_: manadart spent some time cleaning it up and verifying it for me - so thanks to him :D [17:03] bdx: magicaltrout cory_fu ^ [17:03] zeestrat: ^ [17:03] Ty too manadart. Solid team effort [17:03] So awesome [17:04] Nice [17:04] kwmonroe: as well ^ [17:04] Any chance to.bang on it feedback welcome [17:13] stickupkid: could you trigger another build? :^) [17:13] Dmitrii-Sh: sure [17:13] thx [17:46] stickupkid: looks like the test went well, thanks again [18:06] stickupkid, mandart: that is just awesome! thanks! [20:33] hey hml, did you see my answer about the featureflag worker? [20:33] babbageclunk: i did… [20:33] babbageclunk: have to circle back to see what can be done for a non controller machine agent [20:34] hml: you signed out before I could say, I don't think it would be *too* hard to change it to work via the api [20:35] babbageclunk: hmm [20:36] hml: the main difficulty is just the mismatch between the state.NotifyWatcher and watcher.NotifyWatcher (I think) [20:38] babbageclunk: would it require a new featuretag manifold type? or just modifications to the current? [20:40] I think you could paper over the differences in the manifold with only minor changes to the ConfigSource interface. The manifold would need to switch between different input sources - either the APICaller or State, and wrap them differently to be ConfigSources. [20:44] hml: want to have a hangout to chat about it? [20:45] babbageclunk: can we do it tomorrow? my brain is on other topics right now. :-) [20:46] sure sure [20:50] babbageclunk: ty