Bug 1303039
| Summary: | unknown error and traceback when the custom repo path duplicates existing one | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Update Infrastructure for Cloud Providers | Reporter: | Irina Gulina <igulina> |
| Component: | Tools | Assignee: | RHUI Bug List <rhui-bugs> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Irina Gulina <igulina> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 3.0.0 | CC: | bizhang, bkearney, pcreech, tsanders |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | 3.0.0 | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2017-03-01 22:11:22 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
Irina Gulina
2016-01-29 11:56:44 UTC
may be dupe of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1325333 *** Bug 1325333 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** On RHEL6 and 7 ISO's 20161025 rhui (repo) => l Custom Repositories unprotected_repo1 unprotected_repo2_sha1 Red Hat Repositories Red Hat Update Infrastructure 2.0 (RPMs) (6Server-i386) Red Hat Update Infrastructure 2.0 (RPMs) (6Server-x86_64) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ rhui (repo) => c Unique ID for the custom repository (alphanumerics, _, and - only): unprotected_repo1_duplicate Display name for the custom repository [unprotected_repo1_duplicate]: Path at which the repository will be served [unprotected_repo1_duplicate]: unprotected_repo1 Algorithm to use when calculating the checksum values for repository metadata: 1 - sha256 (default) 2 - sha1 (RHEL 5) Enter value (1-2) or 'b' to abort: 1 Should the repository require an entitlement certificate to access? (y/n) n Should the repository require clients to perform a GPG check and verify packages are signed by a GPG key? (y/n) n The following repository will be created: ID: unprotected_repo1_duplicate Name: unprotected_repo1_duplicate Path: unprotected_repo1 GPG Check No Red Hat GPG Key: No Proceed? (y/n) y Error creating repository: Failed to create the unprotected_repo1_duplicate repository for the following reason: HTTP 400 Relative URL [unprotected/unprotected_repo1] for repository [unprotected_repo1_duplicate] conflicts with existing relative URL [unprotected/unprotected_repo1] for repository [unprotected_repo1]. Questions: 1. Why is not the uniqueness of the url path checked as soon as a user enters path and presses [ENTER], but only when all other repo options (GPG check and key) are prompted? E.g. the repo ID uniqueness is checked immediately: Unique ID for the custom repository (alphanumerics, _, and - only): unprotected_repo1 A repository with ID "unprotected_repo1" already exists Unique ID for the custom repository (alphanumerics, _, and - only): 2. Why was not "Path at which the repository will be served [unprotected_repo1_duplicate]:" changed with "Unique path at which the repository will be served [unprotected_repo1_duplicate]:" as similar to "Unique ID for the custom repository"? 1. There is no pulp API to check if the url path is duplicated, so currently we only know it's a duplicate when we try to create it. The alternative is to pull every repository in rhui and iterate through all of them, which is time consuming. I propose that we make a new feature for this and put it in the backlog. 2. This is a good suggestion, I'll update the wording On ISO 20161109 wording update: 'Unique path at which the repository will be served [custom_repo1]:' 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://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2017:0367 |