Skip to content

i/builtin: lxd interface allows access to the connected lxd parallel instance - #17708

Open
Mohit-Chachada wants to merge 1 commit into
canonical:masterfrom
Mohit-Chachada:lxd-iface-slot-side-parallel-instances
Open

Mohit-Chachada wants to merge 1 commit into
canonical:masterfrom
Mohit-Chachada:lxd-iface-slot-side-parallel-instances

Conversation

@Mohit-Chachada

@Mohit-Chachada Mohit-Chachada commented Sep 24, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

lxd-support interface is still marked as unsupported for parallel instances and the lxd team reported that parallel instances have never properly worked for lxd. But, i think we can still fix this part with the lxd interface to have one less thing to fix if we ever want lxd to support this in the future.

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copilot review overview

🟢 Approval recommended

All reviewed changes are covered by tests, with no unresolved issues.

Review effort: Balanced
Findings: None

What changed in this PR

Updates the LXD interface’s AppArmor policy to support parallel-installed LXD instances.

Changes:

  • Generates socket paths from the connected slot’s instance name.
  • Adds regression coverage for standard and parallel LXD instances.
File Description
interfaces/​builtin/​lxd.go Generates instance-specific AppArmor socket rules.
interfaces/​builtin/​lxd_test.go Tests standard and parallel-instance socket access.

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Sep 24, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Thu Sep 24 15:56:36 UTC 2026
The following results are from: https://github.com/canonical/snapd/actions/runs/36010966895

No spread result artifacts found

No spread results JSON artifacts were available for this workflow run, so spread failures (if any) could not be reported.

@codecov

codecov Bot commented Sep 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 78.38%. Comparing base (d07ce96) to head (6ce4071).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master   #17708   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   78.38%   78.38%           
=======================================
  Files        1422     1418    -4     
  Lines      200797   200787   -10     
  Branches     2503     2503           
=======================================
- Hits       157388   157385    -3     
+ Misses      33977    33961   -16     
- Partials     9432     9441    +9     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 78.38% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@maykathm maykathm left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

thanks!

This branch has not been deployed

No deployments
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.

3 participants