Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat: implement lustre-server-proxy charm #11

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 16, 2025

Conversation

jedel1043
Copy link
Collaborator

No integration tests yet, since we'll need to implement the required parts on filesystem-client. That's also why this doesn't enable publishing it to Charmhub.

Copy link
Member

@NucciTheBoss NucciTheBoss left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looking real goo here! Just a couple of minor comments around documentation and code duplication.

We discussed this during our 1:1 that the charm should be renamed from LustreFS to Lustre since Lustre is mounted as mount -t lustre ... rather than mount -t lustrefs ... . Easy search and replace...

@jedel1043 jedel1043 force-pushed the lustrefs-proxy branch 2 times, most recently from 61568dd to 5980ee0 Compare January 16, 2025 18:08
Copy link
Member

@NucciTheBoss NucciTheBoss left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM! :shipit:

Just going to rename PR so it's super duper clear that the charm name is lustre rather than lustrefs

@NucciTheBoss NucciTheBoss changed the title feat: implement lustrefs-server-proxy charm feat: implement lustre-server-proxy charm Jan 16, 2025
@NucciTheBoss NucciTheBoss merged commit acc5171 into charmed-hpc:main Jan 16, 2025
5 checks passed
@jedel1043 jedel1043 deleted the lustrefs-proxy branch January 16, 2025 19:54
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants