Skip to content

Update confdb tutorial following feedback from Ocado#377

Open
mcw-work wants to merge 1 commit into
canonical:mainfrom
mcw-work:main
Open

Update confdb tutorial following feedback from Ocado#377
mcw-work wants to merge 1 commit into
canonical:mainfrom
mcw-work:main

Conversation

@mcw-work

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@mcw-work

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@st3v3nmw - please review

@st3v3nmw st3v3nmw left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, small nit below.

Now let’s create some view rules to access confdb.

In our example, well use one snap to configure the network and another to access it, which means we need two views: `configure-wifi` and `access-wifi`.
In our example, we'll use one snap to host the views and allow configuration of the network, and another snap to access the configuration. This means we will need two views: `configure-wifi` and `access-wifi`.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nitpick on "host" which implies "residence". Might be better to say this which is closer to the framing in the reference documentation:

Suggested change
In our example, we'll use one snap to host the views and allow configuration of the network, and another snap to access the configuration. This means we will need two views: `configure-wifi` and `access-wifi`.
In our example, we'll use one snap to manage the network configuration, and another snap to access it. This means we will need two views: `configure-wifi` and `access-wifi`.

https://snapcraft.io/docs/explanation/how-snaps-work/confdb-configuration-mechanism/#custodians

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I was trying to make the point that each view needs a custodian snap so it is clear even if you are not going to access it from that snap.

How about "In our example, we'll use one snap as custodian of the two views and allowing changes to the configuration of the network, and another snap to access it. .." ?

@ndyer ndyer self-assigned this Jun 15, 2026
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