magic strings in reactive relations lead to confusion
| Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Charm Helpers |
Invalid
|
Undecided
|
Unassigned | ||
Bug Description
The strings used in reactive relations are subtle, yet are documented in such a way that assumes internals knowledge.
There's a lot of templating that is getting expanded behind the scenes, but for a layer user or charm author, this doesn't get exposed in any way that explains what is expected. And since there are strings for interface names, relation names, and service names, it's tempting to just try the cross-product of them when things don't work. This tends to waste time.
Furthermore, the juju-info interface layer just lists {{name}} in the readme, assuming the reader knows exactly which magic string should be placed there. This is one of the most opaque and confusing barriers to using reactive relations, and needs tooling and documentation to guide new users.
| Charles Butler (lazypower) wrote | #1 |
| Changed in charm-helpers: | |
| status: | New → Invalid |
Migrated a big chunk of this to the respective repositories:
https:/
and
https:/
As this has very little to do with charm-helpers, i'm going too close as off topic and instead point to the upstream bugs for correction. If additional tooling is indeed being requested, I invite you to open a bug against the charm-tools project
http://
Which warehouses all the listing and proofing tools, which is where I feel that would live, as a validation cycle during 'charm proof'