Bug 739177

Summary:	No provider HWPs are present
Product:	[Retired] CloudForms Cloud Engine	Reporter:	Matt Wagner <matt.wagner>
Component:	aeolus-conductor	Assignee:	Angus Thomas <athomas>
Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE	QA Contact:	wes hayutin <whayutin>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	1.0.0	CC:	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:
Embargoed:

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 ***