Mixing colocation and multiple unit leads to unexpected result

[Vincenzo Di Somma]

juju add-unit ubuntu -n 4 --to 0 resulted in one new unit on machine 0 and 3 new machines created.

https://paste.ubuntu.com/24497481/

juju version 2.2-beta2-xenial-amd64 with Openstack Ocata

[John A Meinel (jameinel)]

That is intended behavior. If you want to create 4 instances on one machine
you would have to specify:
  juju add-unit ubuntu -n4 --to 0,0,0,0
as you might actually want:
  juju add-unit ubuntu -n4 --to 0,1,2,3
or any other number of combinations, the logic is to accept the arguments
of '--to' but provide the rest of the machines in the same fashion we would
provide them without any --to argument (e.g. request new instances).

There is an argument that we should require the number of arguments in
'--to' to match the -nX value, but we would need a way to specify a 'new
machine' in the --to argument.

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Vincenzo Di Somma <
<email address hidden>> wrote:

> Public bug reported:
>
> juju add-unit ubuntu -n 4 --to 0 resulted in one new unit on machine 0
> and 3 new machines created.
>
>
> https://paste.ubuntu.com/24497481/
>
> juju version 2.2-beta2-xenial-amd64 with Openstack Ocata
>
> ** Affects: juju
> Importance: Undecided
> Status: New
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to juju.
> Matching subscriptions: juju bugs
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1687663
>
> Title:
> Mixing colocation and multiple unit leads to unexpected result
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju/+bug/1687663/+subscriptions
>

[Vincenzo Di Somma (vds)]

I don't think I've found that syntax documented anywhere.
Probably document it clearly, including in --help, would be enough for the moment?

[Menno Finlay-Smits (menno.smits)]

I ran into this myself recently. I'll fix the help.

[Menno Finlay-Smits (menno.smits)]

https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/7343