| Summary: | Unable to disable a task schedule | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Satellite 5 | Reporter: | Kenny Tordeurs <ktordeur> |
| Component: | WebUI | Assignee: | Grant Gainey <ggainey> |
| Status: | CLOSED DEFERRED | QA Contact: | Red Hat Satellite QA List <satqe-list> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 570 | CC: | tlestach |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| 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: | 2018-04-09 15:10:26 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: | |
|
Description
Kenny Tordeurs
2016-11-09 13:56:12 UTC
Hello Kenny, this is expected and designed this way. Disabling and deleting a schedule (so the reoccurring execution of a certain task) is effectively the same thing. With both - disabling and deleting a schedule you're telling from now on you do not want the task to be executed on a periodic basis. I agree the wording isn't consistent though. Hi Tomas, Thanks for the quick reply. Would be nice if we could change it to delete instead of disable to avoid confusion. Because disable would make you think you can enable it again while now you would have to re-create the schedule. We have re-reviewed this bug, as part of an ongoing effort to improve Satellite/Proxy feature and bug updates, review and backlog. This is a low priority bug and has no currently open customer cases. While this bug may still valid, we do not see it being implemented prior to the EOL of the Satellite 5.x product. As such, this is being CLOSED DEFERRED. Closing now to help set customer expectations as early as possible. You are welcome to re-open this bug if needed. |