Hi Tilman (I'm not an expert here, but was staring at the docs)
I suspect that your peers relationship should be unit if each peer needs to have it's own conversation? Otherwise, with a global scope, every peer will overwrite the other's information? At least I'm wondering if that what the scopes mean: see here: https://jujucharms.com/docs/2.0/developer-layers-interfaces If that's completely wrong, then a) sorry for the noise, and b) do tell, as it will help me in my understanding of juju scopes. Cheers Alex. On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Tilman Baumann < tilman.baum...@canonical.com> wrote: > Any comments are appreciated. I'm stuck with this right now and I'm out > of ideas. > > Thanks > Tilman > > On 24.01.2017 14:44, Tilman Baumann wrote: > > [...] > > Any idea what could be happening here. > > I suspect something with the scopes. But they are now all set > > explicitly. Any changes in implicit behavior should not affect this. > > Am I expecting something from subordinate charms which they can not > provide? > > > > The ssh-peers-relation-* hooks are still called when a unit joins or > > leaves. But somehow it's information is not added to the conversation. > > Or rather, I think it replaces actually the currently visible single > > entry in there. > > -- > Juju mailing list > Juju@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/ > mailman/listinfo/juju > -- Alex Kavanagh - Software Engineer Cloud Dev Ops - Solutions & Product Engineering - Canonical Ltd
-- Juju mailing list Juju@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
