Red Hat Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
|Summary:||RFE: resource *delete* should also remove (uninventory) logically related resources|
|Product:||[Other] RHQ Project||Reporter:||Charles Crouch <ccrouch>|
|Component:||Inventory||Assignee:||RHQ Project Maintainer <rhq-maint>|
|Status:||NEW ---||QA Contact:|
|Version:||1.0||CC:||bkramer, cwelton, dasimmon, hbrock, jochen.riedlinger, jshaughn, kejohnso, loleary|
|Target Milestone:||---||Keywords:||FutureFeature, Improvement|
|Fixed In Version:||1.4||Doc Type:||Enhancement|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
Description Charles Crouch 2008-06-23 18:01:00 EDT
Example would be deleting a .ear archive, will remove the archive from disk, remove the ear resource from the inventory, but leave the stateless session bean resources (that were contained in the .ear) still in the inventory. These resources turn red since their actual deployment (inside the .ear archive) no longer exists. The trouble is there is no real association between the ear resource and the SLSB resource to indicate that the SLSB should be removed too.
Comment 1 Joseph Marques 2009-04-28 05:11:55 EDT
this could/would be fixed by implementing the relationship service.
Comment 2 Red Hat Bugzilla 2009-11-10 16:13:23 EST
This bug was previously known as http://jira.rhq-project.org/browse/RHQ-618 This bug is related to RHQ-372 This bug incorporates RHQ-323
Comment 3 Jochen Riedlinger 2010-05-27 08:00:17 EDT
This is not only true for a deletion of an EAR, but also for an uninventory of that EAR. Also not only the SLSBs(EJB-JARs) is still there, but all other embedded elements of that EAR (RAR, WAR, ) We deploy our EARs with names like e.g.: OurApp-2.2.4.ear (with embedded OurApp-EJB-2.2.4.jar, OurApp-web-2.2.4.war) and want to uninventory them when updating to OurApp-2.2.5.ear It is too much work not just to uninventory the EARs but also all children.....
Comment 4 Corey Welton 2010-09-13 15:58:30 EDT
needinfo ccrouch: latest thoughts?
Comment 5 bkramer 2011-01-19 05:47:24 EST
I have raised the following https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670749 before I found this one. If you check the steps to reproduce in 670749 you will see exactly the same test scenario.
Comment 6 Larry O'Leary 2011-02-08 11:02:52 EST
*** Bug 670749 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***