Bug 1335242

Summary:	re-initialization from accept-hosts page
Product:	[Red Hat Storage] Red Hat Storage Console	Reporter:	Lubos Trilety <ltrilety>
Component:	UI	Assignee:	Karnan <kchidamb>
Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE	QA Contact:	sds-qe-bugs
Severity:	low	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	2	CC:	ltrilety, mbukatov, nthomas, sankarshan
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	2
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2016-06-07 08:17:30 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 Lubos Trilety 2016-05-11 16:16:24 UTC

Description of problem:
If some initialization fails during cluster creation, there's possibility to run initialization task from the same page, however the progress of that task is not displayed and so the host on this accept-hosts page seems to be failed even if the task succeeded.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
rhscon-ui-0.0.29-1.el7scon.noarch
rhscon-ceph-0.0.13-1.el7scon.x86_64
rhscon-core-0.0.16-1.el7scon.x86_64

How reproducible:
10%

Steps to Reproduce:
1. try to accept all hosts from accept-hosts page
2. run re-initialization for a host which initialization failed

Actual results:
The status of a host never change to success on the accept-hosts page and the progress bar is not displayed again.

Expected results:
After click on re-initialization the progress bar should be displayed again with initialization try. And when it finishes correctly the status should be success.

Additional info:

Comment 1 Martin Bukatovic 2016-06-06 10:41:07 UTC

Is this the same issue as described in BZ 1340502? If yes, I would suggest to
close this BZ 1335242 as a duplicate of BZ 1340502, even though that this BZ
was reported first, the other one contains more details including full
reproducer.

Comment 2 Lubos Trilety 2016-06-07 08:17:30 UTC

(In reply to Martin Bukatovic from comment #1)
> Is this the same issue as described in BZ 1340502? If yes, I would suggest to
> close this BZ 1335242 as a duplicate of BZ 1340502, even though that this BZ
> was reported first, the other one contains more details including full
> reproducer.

I agree that there's more information and the scenario is more precise in the other bug. Closing this as a duplicate.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1340502 ***