Bug 740397

Summary: Systems can be held by deleted recipes
Product: [Retired] Beaker Reporter: Matt Brodeur <mbrodeur>
Component: inventoryAssignee: Dan Callaghan <dcallagh>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact:
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 0.7CC: bpeck, mcsontos, rmancy, stl
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-09-22 15:27:19 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 Brodeur 2011-09-21 21:30:06 UTC
Description of problem:
[16:25] <mbrodeur> bpeck: I think someone's used this feature to create an un-returnable system.
[16:25] <mbrodeur> https://beaker.engineering.redhat.com/view/dell-per210-01.lab.bos.redhat.com
[16:26] <mbrodeur> The return error refers to a deleted recipe. Canceling what would have been the right job number gives a successful result but the machine it still reserved.
[16:27] <bpeck> mbrodeur: I'm not sure what the chain of events are that gets us in this state
[16:27] <bpeck> mbrodeur: they shouldn't be able to delete a job that is still active
[16:28] <bpeck> the way I get around it for now is:
[16:28] <bpeck> 1) use bkr job-results R:RECIPID to find out the recipesetID
[16:28] <bpeck> 2) bkr job-cancel RS:recipesetID
[16:28] <bpeck> I did that just now to that recipe
[16:29] <bpeck> mbrodeur: you want to capture this irc session and open a bz


The root of the issue is that systems can remain assigned to a user after a job is complete.  I think there's a separate bug for that.  In this particular case, a completed job can be deleted while there's still a system that thinks it's being used.  The job being deleted makes it more difficult, but not impossible, to free the system.

Comment 1 Dan Callaghan 2011-09-21 22:10:52 UTC
I think this is the same as bug 715226.

Comment 2 Matt Brodeur 2011-09-22 15:27:19 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 715226 ***