Bug 1363904

Summary:	Cloud tenant and AZ from overcloud show up in undercloud relationships
Product:	Red Hat CloudForms Management Engine	Reporter:	nate stephany <nstephan>
Component:	Providers	Assignee:	Tzu-Mainn Chen <tzumainn>
Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE	QA Contact:	Omri Hochman <ohochman>
Severity:	high	Docs Contact:
Priority:	high
Version:	5.6.0	CC:	apannu, bascar, cpelland, dajohnso, gblomqui, jfrey, jhajyahy, jhardy, kmorey, nstephan, obarenbo, simaishi, tzumainn
Target Milestone:	GA	Keywords:	TestOnly, ZStream
Target Release:	5.7.0
Hardware:	All
OS:	All
Whiteboard:	openstack:av_zone
Fixed In Version:	5.7.0.0	Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:
Clones:	1370198 (view as bug list)		Environment:
Last Closed:	2017-01-11 20:25:32 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:
Bug Blocks:	1370198

Description nate stephany 2016-08-03 22:03:43 UTC

Description of problem:
When linking an OpenStack overcloud cloud provider to an undercloud infrastructure provider, the "Cloud Tenants" and "Availability Zones" relationships in the infrastructure provider are populated with data from the cloud provider. If they are unlinked, the values for both go to 0, even though the undercloud has multiples of both.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
5.6.0.13

How reproducible:
100%

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Add OSP8 infrastructure & cloud providers
2. Link the cloud provider to the infrastructure provider
3. Observe the relationships on infrastructure provider

Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info:

Comment 3 Petr Blaho 2016-08-22 14:21:22 UTC

I tried that with downstream 5.6.z release and it behaves exactly as described if "both values" are numbers of Cloud Tenants and Availability Zones for Infra Provider (undercloud).

"even though the undercloud has multiples of both" => these are that linked Cloud Tenants and AZs from linked Cloud Provider and so these are for Infra Provider only if it has Cloud Provider linked.

So this is actual result (and from my POV this is how it should work) but what is expected result?

Should Cloud Tenants and AZs from Cloud somehow stay with Infra even after unlinking is done?

Or should these be never displayed in Relations for Infra provider at all even when it has Cloud linked to it?

Thanks for clarification.

Comment 4 nate stephany 2016-08-22 14:48:16 UTC

I don't see why we should include cloud tenants & AZs from the overcloud in the relationships table of the undercloud/infra provider. The other 4 relationships in the table are from the infra provider...so mixing in relationships form the cloud provider here is just confusing.

Somewhere on the infra provider overview for Director, a crosslink to the cloud provider that is linked to it would be great. We have this link from cloud provider > infra provider...but not the other way around.

Comment 7 Tzu-Mainn Chen 2016-08-22 16:58:03 UTC

Ah, fair enough!  Should we just remove the cloud tenants/AZs from the undercloud/infra provider relationships table, and add a link to the cloud provider instead?

Comment 9 Tzu-Mainn Chen 2016-08-23 22:53:34 UTC

PR created which implements the solution in comment 7:

https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq/pull/10714

Comment 11 Ronnie Rasouli 2016-10-10 10:59:52 UTC

verified on 5.7.0.4