Bug 1184648

Summary: Unable to provision openstack instance with non-admin tenant
Product: Red Hat CloudForms Management Engine Reporter: Brandon Dunne <bdunne>
Component: ApplianceAssignee: Brandon Dunne <bdunne>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Jan Krocil <jkrocil>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 5.3.0CC: bdunne, clasohm, dajohnso, david.costakos, jhardy, jkrocil, jprause, kmorey, mfeifer, ssainkar, xlecauch
Target Milestone: GAKeywords: ZStream
Target Release: 5.3.3   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: 5.3.3 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
CFME did not discover instances in all accessible tenants. As a result, user was unable to provision OpenStack instance with non-admin tenant. Modified code to discover instance in all accessible tenants and the user is now able to provision an instance in a non-admin tenant with dedicated network + subnet.
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: 1182795 Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-02-25 16:12:35 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On: 1182795    
Bug Blocks:    

Comment 3 Jan Krocil 2015-02-03 15:30:18 UTC
Tested with RHOS{4,5,6}:

I was able to provision an instance in a non-admin tenant with dedicated network + subnet - this I can confirm as verified.

However, I wasn't able to provision a VM in a tenant that didn't have a dedicated network but had only access to a shared one. The issue is that the shared network does not show up in the "Cloud network" selectbox in such case even though it should (as I can see it in the RHOS web ui being available to the non-admin tenant).

From my POV it would seem that there is a check like this somewhere:
"network.proj_id == proj.id"

when it really should be more like this:
"network.is_shared || network.proj_id == proj.id"

Comment 4 Brandon Dunne 2015-02-04 14:52:35 UTC
Jan,

This is a different problem, please open as a new bug.

Comment 5 Dave Johnson 2015-02-05 22:28:17 UTC
Jan, I believe you opened a new bug...  Please add it to 'see also' field and take the honors of closing this one.

Comment 6 Jan Krocil 2015-02-06 08:00:40 UTC
Dave,
thanks and apologies!

Closing this one as verified/fixed.

Comment 8 errata-xmlrpc 2015-02-25 16:12:35 UTC
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2015-0261.html