Skip to content
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

test: bump series and pin revision for local charm refresh tests #1158

Conversation

james-garner-canonical
Copy link
Contributor

Description

A recent update to the 'ubuntu' charm requires the use of the v2 metadata format when refreshing from a local charm. The v2 format replaces series with bases, among other changes. Properly supporting this will need to wait on updating python-libjuju to handle bases as well as (or instead of) series -- see issue #1156.

In the meantime, fix the test breakage by pinning the install of 'ubuntu' in broken tests to the previous revision (24). This revision has a mismatch with the specification of the "focal" series (20.04), so also bump the series in the local charm to "jammy".

QA Steps

CI tests should now pass again.

A recent update to the 'ubuntu' charm requires the use of the v2
metadata format when refreshing from a local charm. The v2 format
replaces series with bases, among other changes. Properly supporting
this will need to wait on updating python-libjuju to handle bases as
well as (or instead of) series -- see issue juju#1156.

In the meantime, fix the test breakage by pinning the install of
'ubuntu' in broken tests to the previous revision (24). This revision
has a mismatch with the specification of the "focal" series (20.04), so
also bump the series in the local charm to "jammy".
@james-garner-canonical
Copy link
Contributor Author

james-garner-canonical commented Oct 14, 2024

Note: unrelated to this PR, the current state of quarantined integration tests is kinda flaky. On this PR, one test failed on the first run; second run, another test failed; third run, all passed. Non-quarantined tests seem to be more reliable so far.

@dimaqq
Copy link
Contributor

dimaqq commented Oct 15, 2024

/merge

@james-garner-canonical james-garner-canonical removed the request for review from benhoyt October 15, 2024 01:09
@james-garner-canonical
Copy link
Contributor Author

Why didn't this merge?

@james-garner-canonical
Copy link
Contributor Author

/merge

@jujubot jujubot merged commit c040672 into juju:main Oct 15, 2024
11 of 12 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants