Merge ~johnsca/charm-prometheus2:johnsca/feature/manual-job-relation into ~prometheus-charmers/charm-prometheus2:master

Proposed by Cory Johns
Status: Merged
Approved by: Jeremy Lounder
Approved revision: af63107d34c25e4743da4a5a5cfaadbbaf0d2153
Merged at revision: 73f989011ff8c12a44014f2ba98fb0c144645d9b
Proposed branch: ~johnsca/charm-prometheus2:johnsca/feature/manual-job-relation
Merge into: ~prometheus-charmers/charm-prometheus2:master
Diff against target: 110 lines (+31/-4)
4 files modified
layer.yaml (+2/-1)
metadata.yaml (+2/-0)
reactive/prometheus.py (+18/-1)
templates/prometheus.yml.j2 (+9/-2)
Reviewer Review Type Date Requested Status
Jeremy Lounder (community) Approve
Stuart Bishop (community) Approve
Prometheus Charmers Pending
Review via email: mp+371005@code.staging.launchpad.net

Commit message

Add relation endpoint for charms to provide manual job configs

The charm currently supports manual job configuration stanzas via charm
config, but that means charms like Kubernetes which want to use those
have to depend on the operator to manually download and pass in the job
config data. This change adds a new relation endpoint for charms to be
able to provide manual job stanzas automatically over the relation.

Also, fix repo URL in layer.yaml

This caused me to waste some time working on the wrong charm when I used
`charm pull-source`. It would be great if we could figure out a better
way to tie a charm to its source layer repo that would be less likely to
get out of date.

To post a comment you must log in.
Revision history for this message
🤖 Canonical IS Merge Bot (canonical-is-mergebot) wrote :

This merge proposal is being monitored by mergebot. Change the status to Approved to merge.

Revision history for this message
Stuart Bishop (stub) wrote :

This all looks good to me. I haven't gone over the related endpoint implementation on github, so that likely needs to settle before landing.

review: Approve
Revision history for this message
Jeremy Lounder (jldev) wrote :

This looks good. I'll get it merged and ready for release.

It would be good to get an answer to Stuart's question inline, from a process perspective, so we can continue to follow the same style if appropriate.

review: Approve
Revision history for this message
🤖 Canonical IS Merge Bot (canonical-is-mergebot) wrote :

Change successfully merged at revision 73f989011ff8c12a44014f2ba98fb0c144645d9b

Revision history for this message
Cory Johns (johnsca) wrote :

1.3.0 of charms.reactive is released with the relevant change, as well as the interface layer PRs.

Revision history for this message
Kevin W Monroe (kwmonroe) wrote :

I released this to edge/beta in https://jaas.ai/u/prometheus-charmers/prometheus2/15 to ease our K8s LMA testing, but I didn't push to stable in case there was a more formal stable release process.

There was an error fetching revisions from git servers. Please try again in a few minutes. If the problem persists, contact Launchpad support.

Preview Diff

[H/L] Next/Prev Comment, [J/K] Next/Prev File, [N/P] Next/Prev Hunk
The diff is not available at this time. You can reload the page or download it.

Subscribers

People subscribed via source and target branches