juju models reports "missing type, model details not valid"

As this seems to be a regression in compatibility (new 'juju models' fails to run against an older jujud), I'd consider this critical.

I tried to reproduce this without luck.
I bootstrapped a 2.3.3 version of Juju.
I then compiled a 2.4-beta1 client.
juju models worked as expected.

Could you tell me what you did to see this? The api client code was updated to fill in missing model type values from older agents so I am not sure why you're seeing the failure. Any repro steps would be great.

repro with:

   juju login jimm.staging.jujucharms.com
   juju models

Here's some log output from a repro. This is with JIMM - it's possible it's doing something wrong with the facade versions that's causing the client to behave wrongly.

 % juju models --debug --logging-config TRACE
 21:51:06 INFO juju.cmd supercommand.go:56 running juju [2.4-beta1 gc devel +104445e Wed Feb 7 19:22:09 2018 +0000]
 21:51:06 DEBUG juju.cmd supercommand.go:57 args: []string{"juju", "models", "--debug", "--logging-config", "TRACE"}
 21:51:06 INFO juju.juju api.go:67 connecting to API addresses: [jimm.staging.jujucharms.com:443]
 21:51:06 DEBUG juju.api apiclient.go:696 looked up jimm.staging.jujucharms.com -> [185.125.191.194]
 21:51:06 DEBUG juju.api apiclient.go:839 successfully dialed "wss://jimm.staging.jujucharms.com:443/api"
 21:51:06 INFO juju.api apiclient.go:598 connection established to "wss://jimm.staging.jujucharms.com:443/api"
 21:51:06 TRACE juju.rpc.jsoncodec codec.go:225 -> {"request-id":1,"type":"Admin","version":3,"request":"Login","params":{"auth-tag":"","credentials":"","nonce":"","macaroons":[[redacted]],"cli-args":"juju models --debug --logging-config TRACE","user-data":""}}
 21:51:06 TRACE juju.rpc.jsoncodec codec.go:120 <- {"request-id":1,"response":{"controller-tag":"controller-a030379a-940f-4760-8fcf-3062b41a04e8","user-info":{"display-name":"rogpeppe","identity":"user-rogpeppe@external","controller-access":"","model-access":""},"facades":[{"name":"Admin","versions":[3]},{"name":"Bundle","versions":[1]},{"name":"Cloud","versions":[1]},{"name":"Controller","versions":[3]},{"name":"JIMM","versions":[1]},{"name":"ModelManager","versions":[2]},{"name":"Pinger","versions":[1]},{"name":"UserManager","versions":[1]}],"server-version":"2.2.2.2"}}
 21:51:06 TRACE juju.rpc.jsoncodec codec.go:225 -> {"request-id":2,"type":"ModelManager","version":2,"request":"ListModels","params":{"tag":"user-rogpeppe@external"}}
 21:51:06 TRACE juju.rpc.jsoncodec codec.go:120 <- {"request-id":2,"response":{"user-models":[{"model":{"name":"bar","uuid":"127da4f5-d588-4147-855b-25cf6e3a53d5","owner-tag":"user-rogpeppe@external"},"last-connection":null},{"model":{"name":"foo","uuid":"9507f451-a79e-490f-8a4d-a7c935a43706","owner-tag":"user-rogpeppe@external"},"last-connection":null},{"model":{"name":"migrate-test6","uuid":"be1966a2-8711-4cb2-8082-d7a5c12c409a","owner-tag":"user-rogpeppe@external"},"last-connection":null}]}}
 21:51:06 TRACE juju.rpc.jsoncodec codec.go:225 -> {"request-id":3,"type":"ModelManager","version":2,"request":"ModelInfo","params":{"entities":[{"tag":"model-127da4f5-d588-4147-855b-25cf6e3a53d5"},{"tag":"model-9507f451-a79e-490f-8a4d-a7c935a43706"},{"tag":"model-be1966a2-8711-4cb2-8082-d7a5c12c409a"}]}}
 21:51:06 TRACE juju.rpc.jsoncodec codec.go:120 <- {"request-id":3,"response":{"results":[{"result":{"name":"bar","uuid":"127da4f5-d588-4147-855b-25cf6e3a53d5","controller-uuid":"a030379a-940f-4760-8fcf-3062b41a04e8","provider-type":"ec2","default-series":"xenial","cloud-tag":"cloud-aws","cloud-region":"eu-central-1","cloud-credential-tag":"cloudcred-aws_rogpeppe@external_ec2","owner-tag":"user-rogpeppe@external","life":"alive","status":{"st...

On 21 February 2018 at 22:47, Ian Booth <email address hidden> wrote:
> Ah we need jimm PR - juju core is fine.
>

No it's not :)

> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug
> report.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1750833
>
> Title:
> juju models reports "missing type, model details not valid"
>
> Status in juju:
> Incomplete
> Status in juju 2.3 series:
> Invalid
>
> Bug description:
> This PR is incompatible with older API versions that do not return
> type information in the model. https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/8406
>
> The juju models command reports:
>
> % juju models
> missing type, model details not valid
> ERROR missing type, model details not valid
>
> See this comment:
> https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/8406#discussion_r169649328
>
> Juju commit juju-2.3.3-621-g3dc31c2
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju/+bug/1750833/+subscriptions

Ah found it - there's some legacy code for old controllers in core that I missed when filling in the model type defaults.

https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/8414

I am all for fixing old juju code and will look at the PR but the question remains - if it's a code path/api that we are hoping to make obsolete, why does jimm use it? Should it not be updated to use later API?

JIMM should probably be updated. However, if you bootstrap a Juju 2.2
controller (JIMM compatible), we should make sure that Juju 2.3 is able to
talk to it.

The reason Ian couldn't reproduce is that it isn't a bug in 2.4 talking to
2.3, it is a bug in 2.3 talking to 2.2.

John
=:->

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 4:59 AM, Anastasia <email address hidden>
wrote:

> I am all for fixing old juju code and will look at the PR but the
> question remains - if it's a code path/api that we are hoping to make
> obsolete, why does jimm use it? Should it not be updated to use later
> API?
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to juju.
> Matching subscriptions: juju bugs
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1750833
>
> Title:
> juju models reports "missing type, model details not valid"
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju/+bug/1750833/+subscriptions
>

(its possible that we might argue that 2.4 doesn't need to talk to a 2.2
controller, though I'd definitely argue it. But *definitely* a 2.3 client
should be compatible with a 2.2 controller.)

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 6:40 AM, John Meinel <email address hidden> wrote:

> JIMM should probably be updated. However, if you bootstrap a Juju 2.2
> controller (JIMM compatible), we should make sure that Juju 2.3 is able to
> talk to it.
>
> The reason Ian couldn't reproduce is that it isn't a bug in 2.4 talking to
> 2.3, it is a bug in 2.3 talking to 2.2.
>
> John
> =:->
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 4:59 AM, Anastasia <anastasia.macmood@canonical.
> com> wrote:
>
>> I am all for fixing old juju code and will look at the PR but the
>> question remains - if it's a code path/api that we are hoping to make
>> obsolete, why does jimm use it? Should it not be updated to use later
>> API?
>>
>> --
>> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to juju.
>> Matching subscriptions: juju bugs
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1750833
>>
>> Title:
>> juju models reports "missing type, model details not valid"
>>
>> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju/+bug/1750833/+subscriptions
>>
>
>

https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/8414

The root cause is wholely in 2.4 - it has nothing to do with 2.2 or 2.3
There was a case where a legacy api client missed filling in the model type when talking to an old server.

To second Ian's comment, I just confirmed that the 2.3 branch params.ModelInfo struct (which is what is being populated) did not have a Type field (for IAAS vs CAAS) so it couldn't have needed to have that field populated.

this was only a bug in the develop branch, so the fix is actually "released" since develop was fixed.