juju deploy cs:ubuntu --to lxd:0 never allocates a machine when machine 0 is not present on a clean model

I would have thought that "juju deploy --to lxd:X" where X doesn't exist in
the model should be an error.
I wonder if something changed here with the "lxd:new" being added to bundle
deployments.

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Dmitrii Shcherbakov <
<email address hidden>> wrote:

> Public bug reported:
>
> $ juju deploy cs:ubuntu --to lxd:0
>
> $ juju status
> Model Controller Cloud/Region Version SLA
> testmodel vmaas vmaas 2.4-beta1 unsupported
>
> App Version Status Scale Charm Store Rev OS Notes
> ubuntu waiting 0/1 ubuntu jujucharms 12 ubuntu
>
> Unit Workload Agent Machine Public address Ports Message
> ubuntu/0 waiting allocating waiting
> for machine
>
> Machine State DNS Inst id Series AZ Message
>
> Never allocates a machine 0 to host container 0.
>
> $ juju add-unit ubuntu
>
> $ juju status
> Model Controller Cloud/Region Version SLA
> testmodel vmaas vmaas 2.4-beta1 unsupported
>
> App Version Status Scale Charm Store Rev OS Notes
> ubuntu waiting 0/2 ubuntu jujucharms 12 ubuntu
>
> Unit Workload Agent Machine Public address Ports Message
> ubuntu/0 waiting allocating waiting
> for machine
> ubuntu/1 waiting allocating 0 10.10.101.59 waiting
> for machine
>
> Machine State DNS Inst id Series AZ Message
> 0 pending 10.10.101.59 xcgtpc xenial az3 Deploying: Power
> state queried: on
>
> ** Affects: juju
> Importance: Undecided
> Status: New
>
>
> ** Tags: cpe-onsite
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to juju.
> Matching subscriptions: juju bugs
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1759236
>
> Title:
> juju deploy cs:ubuntu --to lxd:0 never allocates a machine when
> machine 0 is not present on a clean model
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju/+bug/1759236/+subscriptions
>

I agree with John.

"lxd:new" isn't a new addition to bundles, it has been that way for a
long time.

I believe "lxd:" will put the unit in a lxd container on a new machine.

On 28/03/18 00:14, John A Meinel wrote:
> I would have thought that "juju deploy --to lxd:X" where X doesn't exist in
> the model should be an error.
> I wonder if something changed here with the "lxd:new" being added to bundle
> deployments.
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Dmitrii Shcherbakov <
> <email address hidden>> wrote:
>
>> Public bug reported:
>>
>> $ juju deploy cs:ubuntu --to lxd:0
>>
>> $ juju status
>> Model Controller Cloud/Region Version SLA
>> testmodel vmaas vmaas 2.4-beta1 unsupported
>>
>> App Version Status Scale Charm Store Rev OS Notes
>> ubuntu waiting 0/1 ubuntu jujucharms 12 ubuntu
>>
>> Unit Workload Agent Machine Public address Ports Message
>> ubuntu/0 waiting allocating waiting
>> for machine
>>
>> Machine State DNS Inst id Series AZ Message
>>
>> Never allocates a machine 0 to host container 0.
>>
>> $ juju add-unit ubuntu
>>
>> $ juju status
>> Model Controller Cloud/Region Version SLA
>> testmodel vmaas vmaas 2.4-beta1 unsupported
>>
>> App Version Status Scale Charm Store Rev OS Notes
>> ubuntu waiting 0/2 ubuntu jujucharms 12 ubuntu
>>
>> Unit Workload Agent Machine Public address Ports Message
>> ubuntu/0 waiting allocating waiting
>> for machine
>> ubuntu/1 waiting allocating 0 10.10.101.59 waiting
>> for machine
>>
>> Machine State DNS Inst id Series AZ Message
>> 0 pending 10.10.101.59 xcgtpc xenial az3 Deploying: Power
>> state queried: on
>>
>> ** Affects: juju
>> Importance: Undecided
>> Status: New
>>
>>
>> ** Tags: cpe-onsite
>>
>> --
>> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to juju.
>> Matching subscriptions: juju bugs
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1759236
>>
>> Title:
>> juju deploy cs:ubuntu --to lxd:0 never allocates a machine when
>> machine 0 is not present on a clean model
>>
>> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju/+bug/1759236/+subscriptions
>>
>

An error is fine by me - just something I noticed while poking around.

This bug has not been updated in 2 years, so we're marking it Low importance. If you believe this is incorrect, please update the importance.