On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Michael Nelson < michael.nel...@canonical.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Andrew Wilkins > <andrew.wilk...@canonical.com> wrote: > > Hi Sameer, > > > > The behaviour changed a few months ago to address a bug: > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1353442 > > > > Is this causing you problems, or were you just surprised/curious? > > > Hi Andrew. This did cause a bug in the elasticsearch charm recently > [1] - I'd not realised it was related to a juju change, but thought it > was just a difference on ec2, that the private-address was not an IP > address (I had only tested with local, canonistack and HP). > The change that I referred to was MAAS-specific. I'm looking at the AWS code now, and it looks like it should now be and always was returning the FQDN for private-address. My experience with the AWS provider is not strong enough to know for sure, though. > The reason it caused an issue was because we were using the > private-address as part of a firewall rule which required an IP > address. We've pushed a fix now, but is there a way to foresee this > kind of change in the future? Maybe for these changes which might > affect charms, we could trigger retests for some set of approved > charms across HP, ec2 etc.? > I think that makes sense. I'm not sure what gets tested in CI, but I do think we should have some acceptance testing with real charms if we don't already. > [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/charms/+source/elasticsearch/+bug/1386664
-- Juju mailing list Juju@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju