Feature flag for a provider?

[Wayne Witzel]

That sounds reasonable to me Aaron. Also Eric just suggested I put the set
flag in export_test.go, he did something similar for GCE and it worked, so
I will try that.

Thanks.

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Aaron Bentley <aaron.bentley at canonical.com>
wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2015-04-22 09:00 AM, Wayne Witzel wrote:
> > I've been told to place cloudsigma provider behind a feature flag,
> > but the result of that is that the provider is not registered
> > unless the env variable for cloudsigma is set.
> >
> > So after wrapping the registration of the provider in the feature
> > flag (see:
> >
> https://github.com/juju/juju/commit/0a2cf42dcf051fe43bd803ebb144358723b4af82
> ),
> >
> >
> the tests no longer pass, since there is no registered provider for
> > cloudsigma. Manually calling s.SetFeatureFlag(feature.CloudSigma)
> > from the Suite and/or Test setup methods doesn't help since by that
> > point the "init" for each provider has already been run.
> >
> > Looking for suggestions? My thought is that the flag isn't needed
> > since by nature providers are contained and their code is only
> > called if you explicitly use the provider.
>
> I think there's a potential quality issue.  I don't know anything
> about the state of the cloud sigma provider code, but since it's being
> kept behind a feature flag, I have to think
> a) The code is not yet production quality or
> b) The API isn't stable.
>
> Say you're using Juju 2.5, in which the cloud sigma provider is fully
> production quality.  You create an environment.  Then you go to a
> machine that has Juju 2.4, where the provider was not
> production-quality, and try to perform an operation on that
> environment.  Does Juju break?  Does the environment?
>
> Because you weren't paying attention to the Juju version number, you
> may be surprised by poor behaviour.  Instead, it would be better if
> Juju said: "CloudSigma is not production-quality in this version of
> Juju.  To enable it anyway, set JUJU_DEV_FEATURE_FLAGS to $FOO."
>
> So to avoid surprising users, I think a feature flag makes sense.
>
> Aaron
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVN6FkAAoJEK84cMOcf+9hXR8IAKoenxmb8797B7xaNB842ZkH
> tlwwvsc/joO8Cy73OPFyNg1NQ14g4FVCUJJ6q0qgj51ubIrB1725a0XwilUYSme5
> uQGqEebZx6o9Q1SCP7uxOAZ4SEH7KftjIiqKG7kTzV93ZSeJtyK3Y7K7IuKw18UL
> VvOdhxrAie/dBnxhx16CqqbJcSj21RqLmd9osgL+gWTPtZ+UkAwV5nDqunAfaqt4
> 9DeoYloYVeqaFlQoTsyMB0hxd3Z63S+gHcjGWSRfAqdXCOZFjMntdbq8+dOMDMvB
> FkL0GBKliC7tPio2/w7OF4UW8AGMxQvMGddJflOFFt+CNAGwaLtxf6mHuA9jRGw=
> =VdEM
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> --
> Juju-dev mailing list
> Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>



-- 
Wayne Witzel III
wayne.witzel at canonical.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju-dev/attachments/20150422/8565712f/attachment.html>