containerless still attempts sudo lxc-ls

[Ryan Beisner]

OSCI slaves use "containerless" mojo. Even with containerless, container-specific commands are attempted by mojo.

00:03:39.139 Traceback (most recent call last):
00:03:39.139 File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/mojo/cli.py", line 583, in run_with_args
00:03:39.139 args.func(args)
00:03:39.139 File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/mojo/utils.py", line 305, in wrapped
00:03:39.139 return method(*args, **kwargs)
00:03:39.139 File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/mojo/cli.py", line 220, in create_workspace
00:03:39.139 project = mojo.project.Project(get_project_name(args), args.series, args.mojo_root)
00:03:39.139 File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/mojo/project.py", line 90, in __init__
00:03:39.139 self.container = container_class(self.name, self.series)
00:03:39.139 File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/mojo/contain.py", line 72, in __init__
00:03:39.139 if self.defined:
00:03:39.139 File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/mojo/contain.py", line 398, in defined
00:03:39.139 return self.check_state()
00:03:39.139 File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/mojo/contain.py", line 257, in check_state
00:03:39.139 containers = subprocess.check_output(cmd).split()
00:03:39.139 File "/usr/lib/python2.7/subprocess.py", line 574, in check_output
00:03:39.139 raise CalledProcessError(retcode, cmd, output=output)
00:03:39.139 CalledProcessError: Command '('sudo', 'lxc-ls', '-1')' returned non-zero exit status 1

[Tom Haddon (mthaddon)]

Can you confirm what version of Mojo you're using, and what specific command you're running that triggers this error? It looks like it's invoking code that should only be triggered for a project of LXC container type. Can you also include the contents of /srv/mojo/$MOJO_PROJECT/$MOJO_SERIES/.project ? That should confirm it's a containerless project in the containerclass variable.

[Ryan Beisner (1chb1n)]

We've worked around it in OSCI by just giving lxc-ls sudoer privs. I'm onto other things but will try to circle back with the requested info. However, I can confirm emphatically that we do indeed use containerless exclusively in this particular charm CI. Many thanks.