Closed Maharacha closed 8 months ago
Is there a link to the bug in the data passed in the interfaces?
Is there a link to the bug in the data passed in the interfaces?
It's only in the Element chat so far. One guy there was able to reproduce this behavior. Now waiting for the Juju gurus to wake up.
Another way of doing this would be to use the peer-relation. So that only the leader unit communicates with the interface and updates the app-data that the other units can read. It's a good use case to practice on.
@jonathanudd good news. You can mix the flags however you want. You can have multiple --relay-chain-rpc-urls
flags in the service args and it will use all of the URLs. Which means that the interface can work together with manually added URLs. Worth knowing is that the URLs from the interface is added to the beginning of the service args so they will be used before any manually added URLs are used. As long as they are not manually added in front of the interface URLs but that is up to the operator to understand I would say.
Found out that multiple relay nodes can be configured which will then work automatically as fallback.
I guess we should have suspected this since the setting is --relay-chain-rpc-urls
- e.g. in plural! Nice find though :ok_man:
Is there a link to the bug in the data passed in the interfaces?
There is now https://github.com/canonical/operator/issues/1109 I have added it to the comment in the code.
Became a bit harder for several reasons:
Found out that multiple relay nodes can be configured which will then work automatically as fallback. Example:
--relay-chain-rpc-urls ws://10.207.153.56:9933 ws://10.207.153.189:9933
And of course the interface should support that.Seems to be a bug in Juju where the relation data is not available in the departed hook. A problem since using multiple relay nodes we need to know which one to remove. I have reported this in the Matrix chat. I made a work around storing some extra info in
_stored_
.