Bug 1293944

Summary:	Log common locking management actions
Product:	[oVirt] ovirt-engine	Reporter:	Moti Asayag <masayag>
Component:	BLL.Infra	Assignee:	Moti Asayag <masayag>
Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE	QA Contact:	Pavol Brilla <pbrilla>
Severity:	low	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	4.0.0	CC:	amureini, bugs, jentrena, lsvaty
Target Milestone:	ovirt-4.0.0-alpha	Flags:	rule-engine: ovirt-4.0.0+ rule-engine: planning_ack+ masayag: devel_ack+ lsvaty: testing_ack+
Target Release:	4.0.0
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	ovirt 4.0.0 alpha1	Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2016-07-26 10:59:49 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	Infra	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Moti Asayag 2015-12-23 15:53:25 UTC

Description of problem:
In certain flows (i.e. acquiring wait-lock in command execution), there is no logging in INFO level to complete the overall tracking after a specific lock.

How reproducible:
always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Run command which requires wait-lock for its execution scope, i.e. deactivate storage domain.

Actual results:
notice no message in engine.log for the acquired lock.

Expected results:
A message for acquiring lock for the specific storage pool.

Additional info:
See CommandBase.acquireLockAndWait() which unlike CommandBase.acquireLockInternal() doesn't report lock acquire result.

Comment 1 Red Hat Bugzilla Rules Engine 2015-12-23 15:55:24 UTC

Target release should be placed once a package build is known to fix a issue. Since this bug is not modified, the target version has been reset. Please use target milestone to plan a fix for a oVirt release.

Comment 2 Lukas Svaty 2016-07-26 10:59:49 UTC

This bug was fixed and is slated to be in the upcoming version. As we
are focusing our testing at this phase on severe bugs, this bug was
closed without going through its verification step. If you think this
bug should be verified by QE, please set its severity to high and move
it back to ON_QA