Bug 1505335

Summary:	chargeback assignment reset to <Nothing> if another container provider is assigned a rate
Product:	Red Hat CloudForms Management Engine	Reporter:	Niladri Roy <niroy>
Component:	UI - OPS	Assignee:	Harpreet Kataria <hkataria>
Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE	QA Contact:	juwatts
Severity:	high	Docs Contact:
Priority:	high
Version:	5.8.0	CC:	abellott, azellner, brant.evans, cpelland, dclarizi, gtanzill, hkataria, jhardy, lavenel, mpovolny, myoder, obarenbo, smallamp
Target Milestone:	GA	Keywords:	TestOnly
Target Release:	5.10.0
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	5.10.0.0	Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:
Clones:	1542169 1542170 (view as bug list)		Environment:
Last Closed:	2018-07-30 14:43:26 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	Bug
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	CFME Core	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	1542169, 1542170

Description Niladri Roy 2017-10-23 11:03:06 UTC

Description of problem:
Either the container provider or the cloud/infra provider can be assigned chargeback rates at any single point of time. Whenever the other assignment is saved the previous assignments are reset to <Nothing>

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
5.8.1.5

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Create chargeback rates A & B
2. Go to Cloud Intel > chargebacks > assignments > compute > Assign to "Selected Providers" > set chargeback rate A to any cloud or infra provider > save
3. Go to Assign to "Selected Containers Providers" > set chargeback rate B to the container provider > save

Actual results:
goto "Selected Providers" all rate assignments are reset back to <Nothing>

Expected results:
All the rate assignments should be preserved

Additional info:

Comment 8 Ari Zellner 2018-01-29 09:12:42 UTC

(In reply to Loic Avenel from comment #7)
> I think this was done for clarity, I am adding Ari who may have some insight.
> 
> @Ari, why did we have a separated entry for Container Provider?


We were separating containers from everything needlessly. I think those lists can be merged.

Comment 9 CFME Bot 2018-02-02 16:39:43 UTC

https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq-ui-classic/pull/3368

Comment 10 CFME Bot 2018-02-05 08:19:09 UTC

New commit detected on ManageIQ/manageiq-ui-classic/master:
https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq-ui-classic/commit/c3ea7206d44821ea57d0b1dc8e2ce214cb0ae32e

commit c3ea7206d44821ea57d0b1dc8e2ce214cb0ae32e
Author:     Harpreet Kataria <hkataria>
AuthorDate: Fri Feb 2 11:17:59 2018 -0500
Commit:     Harpreet Kataria <hkataria>
CommitDate: Fri Feb 2 11:17:59 2018 -0500

    Merged Container Providers with all other providers in the list
    
    Need to merge and keep all kind of providers under same entry to be able ot save chargeback assignments for different types of providers together.
    
    Fixes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1505335

 app/controllers/chargeback_controller.rb | 8 ++------
 app/helpers/term_of_service_helper.rb    | 2 --
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

Comment 13 Dave Johnson 2018-07-30 14:43:26 UTC

Closing this as its already been verified in two z-streams and has test coverage around it.