Bug 1418223

Summary: Cloud Router Summary does not show subnets which connected it
Product: Red Hat CloudForms Management Engine Reporter: Ido Ovadia <iovadia>
Component: ProvidersAssignee: Tzu-Mainn Chen <tzumainn>
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE QA Contact: Ido Ovadia <iovadia>
Severity: high Docs Contact:
Priority: high    
Version: 5.7.0CC: cpelland, iovadia, jfrey, jhardy, maufart, obarenbo, simaishi, tzumainn
Target Milestone: GA   
Target Release: cfme-future   
Hardware: x86_64   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard: openstack:sdn
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
: 1437139 (view as bug list) Environment:
Last Closed: 2019-01-24 14:20:42 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: Openstack Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Attachments:
Description Flags
neutron router-port-list none

Description Ido Ovadia 2017-02-01 10:18:22 UTC 
Description of problem:
=======================
I created a router and connect it to external gateway and internal network

but on CFME Cloud Router Summary show Cloud subnets = 0


Version-Release number of selected component:
=============================================
5.7.1.0.20170124142149_8a5f4d5


How reproducible:
=================
100%


Steps to Reproduce:
====================
Note: I have attached the interface to the router via OpenStack CLI due to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1413212

1. Create a router on overcloud
2. Set a gateway 
3. Add an internal network to the router

Actual results:
===============
CFME Router Summary does show the sunbet which connected to the  router   

Cloud subnets 0

Expected results:
=================
Cloud subnets 1 , and linked to the correct internal subnet

Additional info:
================

[stack@undercloud-0 ~]$ neutron router-port-list Router123_admin
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| id                                   | name                                            | mac_address       | fixed_ips                                                                            |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 27a92c25-e8a9-498e-bea2-ad0cea3ea891 | HA port tenant 3fbc9300d381402bb34ae5ceec6bf54b | fa:16:3e:5c:82:26 | {"subnet_id": "023adff3-6778-4d12-987c-3995fb84e128", "ip_address": "169.254.192.1"} |
| 5bd59257-98d2-4d4d-a3a0-57aadf9d2030 |                                                 | fa:16:3e:61:04:69 | {"subnet_id": "4add835e-6bf7-4bee-8f25-012660e1c094", "ip_address": "10.0.0.213"}    |
| 7d383b44-cea0-4432-89bd-2f5bb772d1e1 | HA port tenant 3fbc9300d381402bb34ae5ceec6bf54b | fa:16:3e:16:be:9d | {"subnet_id": "023adff3-6778-4d12-987c-3995fb84e128", "ip_address": "169.254.192.2"} |
| e95f0696-1f85-4ffe-96c7-d00b8d7963b8 | HA port tenant 3fbc9300d381402bb34ae5ceec6bf54b | fa:16:3e:36:e0:53 | {"subnet_id": "023adff3-6778-4d12-987c-3995fb84e128", "ip_address": "169.254.192.9"} |
| f69684e8-6d09-4b39-baac-541d2bccc637 |                                                 | fa:16:3e:da:1c:fe | {"subnet_id": "5da1c822-2986-465c-a0e3-66fba024f911", "ip_address": "192.168.100.1"} |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Comment 1 Ido Ovadia 2017-02-01 10:20:59 UTC 
Created attachment 1246603 [details]
neutron router-port-list
Comment 2 Ido Ovadia 2017-03-29 15:19:47 UTC 
Reproduced with CFME 5.8.0.7 and RHOS 10
Comment 3 Tzu-Mainn Chen 2017-03-30 18:00:56 UTC 
I don't think there's an easily determined direct relationship between a router and a subnet - correct me if I'm wrong?

If I'm not, it might be simplest to simply remove the subnet entry in the table, as it's misleading.  Thoughts?
Comment 4 Tzu-Mainn Chen 2017-03-30 18:09:17 UTC 
Ah, nevermind - I did a little more research, and I think I understand how it's supposed to be done.  Thanks!
Comment 9 Tzu-Mainn Chen 2017-05-10 20:24:18 UTC 
Fixed by: https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq-providers-openstack/pull/31
Comment 10 Dave Johnson 2017-07-14 03:47:48 UTC 
Please assess the importance of this issue and update the priority accordingly.  Somewhere it was missed in the bug triage process.  Please refer to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/page.cgi?id=fields.html#priority for a reminder on each priority's definition.

If it's something like a tracker bug where it doesn't matter, please set it to Low/Low.
Comment 11 Tzu-Mainn Chen 2017-07-18 14:42:17 UTC 
I believe this should be fixed in latest releases, moving to ON_QA
Comment 13 Ido Ovadia 2017-08-30 12:01:20 UTC 
Verified
========
5.8.2.0