Bug 1386650

Summary: [RFE] engine-setup uses previous host/port of remote DB as predefined values in the next usage
Product: [oVirt] ovirt-engine Reporter: Lucie Leistnerova <lleistne>
Component: Setup.EngineAssignee: Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo>
Status: CLOSED DEFERRED QA Contact: Pavel Stehlik <pstehlik>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 4.0.5CC: bugs, didi, ylavi
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: FutureFeature
Target Release: ---Flags: ylavi: ovirt-future?
rule-engine: planning_ack?
rule-engine: devel_ack?
rule-engine: testing_ack?
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2017-03-12 19:09:47 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: Integration RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:

Description Lucie Leistnerova 2016-10-19 11:44:29 UTC
Description of problem:
I have both engine and dwh databases on the same remote server. Now I have to fill in host and port twice. engine-setup could use as predefined values of host/port the values that were filled in previously.

for example

          DWH database host [localhost]: 127.0.0.1
          DWH database port [5432]: 5433
...
          Engine database host [127.0.0.1]:
          Engine database port [5433]:

Comment 1 Yedidyah Bar David 2016-11-23 08:24:43 UTC
(In reply to Lucie Leistnerova from comment #0)
> Description of problem:
> I have both engine and dwh databases on the same remote server. Now I have
> to fill in host and port twice. engine-setup could use as predefined values
> of host/port the values that were filled in previously.
> 
> for example
> 
>           DWH database host [localhost]: 127.0.0.1
>           DWH database port [5432]: 5433
> ...
>           Engine database host [127.0.0.1]:
>           Engine database port [5433]:

I think the case of having the two DBs on different remote machines is also quite likely.

Comment 2 Yaniv Kaul 2017-03-12 19:09:47 UTC
Looks reasonable to me, not worth the effort to change at the moment.