Bug 1200783
| Summary: | ISO Datastores are never detected | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat CloudForms Management Engine | Reporter: | Pete Savage <psavage> |
| Component: | Providers | Assignee: | Greg Blomquist <gblomqui> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Ramesh A <rananda> |
| Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | high | ||
| Version: | 5.4.0 | CC: | gmccullo, jfrey, jhardy, jprause, mfeifer, obarenbo, psavage, rananda |
| Target Milestone: | GA | ||
| Target Release: | 5.4.0 | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | 5.4.0.0.13 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2015-06-16 12:52:14 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: | |||
|
Description
Pete Savage
2015-03-11 11:40:45 UTC
So, this is awkward :) I don't really know how ISO Datastores are used. But, I can definitely see how the code was changed to reverse a condition: Diff: https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq/commit/2ef519d05df037e3ec174882c90355a6586f741e#diff-b360fc259d72a7aa767ef261989c72b9L289 Essentially, what this boils down to is that the original code translated into: "Get all RHEV EMS records that do *not* have an ISO Datastore already." And the new code translates into basically the opposite: "Get all RHEV EMS records that *also* have an ISO Datastore." So, I'm not sure if the original code was wrong and it's been a bug all this time. Or, if the new code is wrong. I know the obvious response is: Duh, there's a bug filed, so obviously the new code is wrong. But, back to my original point: I don't really know how ISO Datastores are used in the application. It seems really weird to me that we just create datastores on providers. In other words, I would fully expect this information to be populated in the refresh. But, based on the original code, there was never an expectation of that. I'm adding a need info on GregM to see if he knows about this better. The UI is trying to show all the Rhev providers that do not have an iso_datastore currently configured. Once added through the UI the iso_datastore relationship would be populated and should no longer show up in the list. (In reply to Greg McCullough from comment #5) > The UI is trying to show all the Rhev providers that do not have an > iso_datastore currently configured. Once added through the UI the > iso_datastore relationship would be populated and should no longer show up > in the list. By "providers that do not have an iso_datastore currently configured" I mean configured in MIQ. New commit detected on manageiq/master: https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq/commit/2cda0c654c7fe5e59f81b953d5a364b2f001fb42 commit 2cda0c654c7fe5e59f81b953d5a364b2f001fb42 Author: Greg Blomquist <gblomqui> AuthorDate: Thu Mar 19 14:37:17 2015 -0400 Commit: Greg Blomquist <gblomqui> CommitDate: Thu Mar 19 14:37:17 2015 -0400 Show RHEV Providers that have no iso datastores The original logic was reversed as part of a commit to clean up sorting logic. This simply replaces the original logic. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200783 vmdb/app/controllers/pxe_controller/iso_datastores.rb | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) This didn't seem to make it into 5.4.0.0.13 Good to go. Verified and working fine in 5.4.0.0.19.20150410165622_ad23806 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-2015-1100.html |