[06:25] morning all [06:35] morning jam ! [08:42] * Chipaca pokes the internal irc [08:42] * Chipaca presents footage of said event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMJXvsCLu6s [08:45] morning Chipaca [08:48] jam: how's things? [08:58] going alright here. [08:58] Chipaca, they just called to tell me my coffee machine should be fixed by tomorrow, whi [08:58] which is pretty good news. [08:58] Though the repair cost is ~ the same as an aeropress :) [09:00] I'm probably going to jinx it, but my aeropress is 6+ years old and still working just fine :) [09:53] niemeyer: hiya! two questions about 'ops.lib.use': one is if you have a strong preference for LIB vs LIB_. The other is whether API/PATCH are the right names for what semantic versioning (which we encourage) is calling MAJOR and MINOR [09:54] patch in particular seems strange as it's the name of the third element (the z in x.y.z) [09:54] * Chipaca is not blocked by these questions and goes back to writing tests [09:57] Chipaca: major and minor mean nothing to most people.. API and patch versions has a stronger semantic [09:59] Chipaca: My preference is obviously for the existing names otherwise I'd not have used them, but it's certainly subjective [09:59] (in terms of the underline, that is) [10:01] niemeyer: ok [10:01] niemeyer: sometimes it feels like it's too mashed together without the _, but sometimes it's fine [10:01] it's *very* subjective :) [10:02] These names will be always seem next to each other.. [10:02] Just type them out and look at them for a moment [10:02] niemeyer: yeah, i think they feel weird when writing the tests, but not too weird in the init file itself, which is probably the right way around for weird [10:03] Looked better without, since the whole prefix is mostly noise in that case.. but I won't argue too much in either direction :) [10:41] niemeyer: another q: what about API or PATCH being 0? [10:41] that's ok, right? [10:44] Chipaca: Yeah, sounds fine [11:12] Muy buenos días a todos! [11:27] morning facubatista [11:27] hola jam [13:21] jam: we should add a test for dispatch + independent action [13:23] Chipaca, indeed. Though it should follow the same logic as the hooks/ independent script (AFAICT) [13:25] hi team, a quick q: do we have a way to alter the "Ports" in the `juju status` output after the charm is deployed? [13:28] vgrevtsev, that is generally populated from calling "open-port", IIRC [13:30] I can't find any reference to the `open-port` in the framework code, so I'm wondering how it's getting done and how can I invoke it within the charm code [13:30] I doubt that the `open-port` is available using the k8s charms.. at least I tried to run it inside the operator pod and got nothing [13:46] vgrevtsev: https://github.com/canonical/operator/issues/179 [13:47] so no surprise you don't find it yet :) [13:47] i don't know about the k8s side of your question though [13:48] Ok, so at least something! ;D [13:50] * facubatista brb [18:29] jam, which is the minimum set we need? (as the OF itself adds other hooks, right?) [18:49] So a minimum to be forward and backward compatible is probably dispatch + start + upgrade-charm [18:49] I think those are all the entry points that you could hit [19:23] jam, no "install"? [20:01] facubatista: yes, also install [20:01] I included it just in case [20:02] :) [20:03] So, First version of the build command: https://github.com/canonical/charmcraft/pull/4 [20:03] and with that, /me eods [20:04] facubatista: huzzah [20:05] facubatista: have a good'un!