Bug 1751165

Summary:	Agreement name field should be mandatory
Product:	Red Hat Directory Server	Reporter:	bsmejkal
Component:	cockpit-389-ds	Assignee:	mreynolds
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	RHDS QE <ds-qe-bugs>
Severity:	low	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	11.0	CC:	afarley, lkrispen, mhonek, pasik, spichugi, tbordaz, vashirov
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	389-ds-base-1.4.1.9-1.module+el8dsrv+4243+ba0eb3c6	Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2019-11-06 12:42:36 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:
Embargoed:

Description bsmejkal 2019-09-11 10:18:34 UTC

Description of problem:
It would be better to have "Agreement Name" field mandatory when creating replication agreements in Replication -> Agreements -> Create Replication Agreement.
The creation successfully fails if Agreement Name is empty but it would be more comfortable for the customer to not fill the whole form again.


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
cockpit-196.2-1.el8.x86_64
cockpit-389-ds-1.4.1.8-1.module+el8dsrv+4209+f45880df.noarch

Comment 2 Viktor Ashirov 2019-10-29 21:34:37 UTC

Builds tested:
389-ds-base-1.4.1.9-1.module+el8dsrv+4243+ba0eb3c6.x86_64
cockpit-389-ds-1.4.1.9-1.module+el8dsrv+4243+ba0eb3c6.noarch

Agreement name is a required field now.

Marking as VERIFIED.

Comment 4 errata-xmlrpc 2019-11-06 12:42:36 UTC

Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2019:3731