Using the current relation_id when publishing the configurations rather than only relying on the first one

juju-solutions / interface-http

Interface layer for the basic http interface protocol

4 stars 7 forks source link

Using the current relation_id when publishing the configurations rather than only relying on the first one #13

Closed maaudet-ca closed 6 years ago

maaudet-ca commented 6 years ago

I'd like to get your input on this approach.

maaudet-ca commented 6 years ago

@johnsca I'm about to test it. Do you think that it's safe to use different versions of the providers and requirers?

Short-term, I'm planning on using this interface for 2 charms that I'm working on, so I will have the occasion to fully test both sides of the relation.

About the linter; is there a documentation to get the linter setup that is generally used for charms-related stuff? Right now I'm on PyCharm defaults.

johnsca commented 6 years ago

Yes, the intention of the refactor is to be fully compatible so it would actually be good to test with different combinations.

For the linter, I generally use flake8 which does PEP8 checking along with some additional linting. The list issue was line length, which isn't really a big deal but I cleaned up anyway.