Bug 1018265

Summary: [admin portal] prestarted vms value impacts pool properties dialog when number of vms in the pool is smaller
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Manager Reporter: Jiri Belka <jbelka>
Component: ovirt-engine-webadmin-portalAssignee: Nobody <nobody>
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX QA Contact: Pavel Stehlik <pstehlik>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 3.3.0CC: ecohen, michal.skrivanek, rbalakri, Rhev-m-bugs, yeylon
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard: virt
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-10-22 09:37:31 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: Virt RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Jiri Belka 2013-10-11 15:03:54 UTC
Description of problem:

When you have a pool with 3 VMs and you define 3 VMs to be prestarted, then you stop fast one VM and detach it from the pool, the pool properties still has '3' as prestarted VM value.

this impact pool properties dialog. just opening and clicking 'OK' causes:

-%-	
Error while executing action:

test:

    Cannot edit VM-Pool. Number of Prestarted VMs cannot exceed the number of VMs in the Pool.
-%-

Either the value should descrease automatically or it should mimic behaviour of max vms per user in the pool (thus you can befine whatever integer you want but reality is checked).

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
is18

How reproducible:
100%

Steps to Reproduce:
1. 1 pool, 3 vms, 3 prestarted
2. when vms are started, poweroff 1 vm and detach it
3. check prestarted vms value in pool properties, click OK

Actual results:
error dialog

Expected results:
?

Additional info:

Comment 2 Michal Skrivanek 2014-08-22 13:01:52 UTC
this bug won't fit into 3.5 release and is being deferred to a later release. If you deeply care about this bug and deserves to be re-evaluated please let me know

Comment 3 Michal Skrivanek 2015-10-22 09:37:31 UTC
closing old bugs, no capacity