Bug 739177

Summary: No provider HWPs are present
Product: [Retired] CloudForms Cloud Engine Reporter: Matt Wagner <matt.wagner>
Component: aeolus-conductorAssignee: Angus Thomas <athomas>
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE QA Contact: wes hayutin <whayutin>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 1.0.0CC: akarol, athomas, dajohnso, deltacloud-maint, dgao, dradez, gblomqui, jvlcek, ssachdev
Target Milestone: rc   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-09-20 15:38:08 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:

Description Matt Wagner 2011-09-16 17:17:31 UTC 
Description of problem:
After applying the latest updates and switching to a unified deltacloud-core, there are no matching HWPs for any provider. Conductor has its default frontend HWPs, but none match anything.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
aeolus-conductor-0.4.0-0.20110915151744gitc633685.fc15


How reproducible:
JoeV and I are both hitting it 100%.


Steps to Reproduce:
1. Upgrade to the latest bits from the -testing repo, or build from source
2. Switch to deltacloud-core
3. Run aeolus-configure
  
Actual results:
No provider HWPs are present. Attempting to list matches for the 'hwp1' and 'hwp2' front-end profiles in the Conductor WUI gives an error that none matched. Deployments cannot be launched as there are no matching profiles found.

Expected results:
Provider HWPs are imported and matched.

Additional info:
Comment 1 Matt Wagner 2011-09-16 17:35:04 UTC 
Whoa... The Provider HWPs are present:

>> Provider.find_by_name('mock').hardware_profiles.collect{|x| x.external_key}
=> ["m1-small", "m1-large", "m1-xlarge", "opaque"]

The matching just isn't happening.
Comment 2 Matt Wagner 2011-09-16 20:16:20 UTC 
So this looks like it's the bug in #736734 in which architecture was "0.0". It seems the RPMs in our repo don't have this fix applied.
Comment 3 wes hayutin 2011-09-20 15:38:08 UTC 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 737890 ***