Skip to content

ci: drop Juju 3.3 #1269

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

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

ci: drop Juju 3.3 #1269

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

dimaqq
Copy link
Contributor

@dimaqq dimaqq commented May 23, 2025

Juju 3.3 has reached end of life.

🔸 Juju 3.3.7 - 10 September 2024
NOTE: This is the last release of 3.3. There will be no more releases.

https://documentation.ubuntu.com/juju/latest/reference/juju/juju-roadmap-and-releases/index.html?dfghjkl=#juju-3-3

Meanwhile, 8 integration tests are failing against Juju 3.3 specifically #1267

This PR removed Juju 3.3 from CI to close #1267

@dimaqq dimaqq requested review from gfouillet and Aflynn50 May 23, 2025 05:42
@dimaqq
Copy link
Contributor Author

dimaqq commented May 23, 2025

@dimaqq dimaqq requested a review from benhoyt May 25, 2025 23:56
Copy link
Collaborator

@benhoyt benhoyt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Shouldn't we remove 3.1/stable while we're here?

@dimaqq
Copy link
Contributor Author

dimaqq commented May 26, 2025

Well if we went all in, we'd remove 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.4 from code and 3.1 3.3 3.4 from CI leaving only 3.5 3.6. wdyt?

Ref: #1270

@benhoyt
Copy link
Collaborator

benhoyt commented May 26, 2025

Well if we went all in, we'd remove 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.4 from code and 3.1 3.3 3.4 from CI leaving only 3.5 3.6. wdyt?

Yeah, I reckon we should just do that.

@dimaqq dimaqq force-pushed the ci-drop-juju-3-3 branch from cf5cc3c to 157c538 Compare May 26, 2025 07:36
@dimaqq
Copy link
Contributor Author

dimaqq commented May 26, 2025

Ahh, actually we can't just do that.
At least we can't remove all the stale 3.x schemas due to #1156 and #1157.
This library is stuck on the older CharmsFacade version for years (?).
Someone would need to find time to re-code charmhub charm resolution from series to bases.

The naive approach didn't work, I've tried in dimaqq#3

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.

Integration tests are failing on main
2 participants