Bug 1573804

Summary:	[online-int]No value for parameter APPLICATION_USER in caching-service template
Product:	OpenShift Online	Reporter:	wewang <wewang>
Component:	Website	Assignee:	Abhishek Gupta <abhgupta>
Status:	NEW ---	QA Contact:	wewang <wewang>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	unspecified	Keywords:	OnlinePro, UpcomingRelease
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:		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:

Description wewang 2018-05-02 09:55:44 UTC

Description of problem:
No value for parameter APPLICATION_USER in template 

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
v3.9.14 (online version 3.6.0.90)

How reproducible:
always
Steps to Reproduce:
1.oc new-app caching-service
error: error processing template "openshift/caching-service": Template.template.openshift.io "caching-service" is invalid: template.parameters[4]: Required value: template.parameters[4]: parameter APPLICATION_USER is required and must be specified

2.
3.

Actual results:
No value for parameter APPLICATION_USER in template 

Expected results:
should have value for parameter APPLICATION_USER 

Additional info:

Comment 1 Abhishek Gupta 2018-05-02 15:53:43 UTC

When using the console to deploy the template, the "Client User" field is required and the user cannot proceed without specifying it. However, when using the CLI, it is not very apparent that the user needs to specify the parameter (APPLICATION_USER) value and gets this error. The solution could simply be to provide a default value for this parameter (something like admin or caching-admin). Given most users will create applications using this template via the console (at least initially), I am not going to consider this a blocker.