Bug 770902

Summary: Deployment creation with blank entries displays "The record you tried to access does not exists, it may have been deleted"
Product: [Retired] CloudForms Cloud Engine Reporter: Aziza Karol <akarol>
Component: aeolus-conductorAssignee: Tomas Hrcka <thrcka>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: wes hayutin <whayutin>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 1.0.0CC: akarol, deltacloud-maint, ssachdev, thrcka, whayutin
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: 2012-02-08 14:36:51 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Attachments:
Description Flags
records deleted dispayed none

Description Aziza Karol 2011-12-30 04:03:32 UTC 
Description of problem:


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1.In default pool, click on New deployment.
2.keep all the fields blank and click on next button.

The record you tried to access does not exists, it may have been deleted is displayed. 
see attached screenshot


Expected results:
Better error message like "Deployment name cannot be blank " should be displayed.

Additional info:
[root@dell-pe1950-01 ~]# rpm -qa |grep aeolus
aeolus-conductor-daemons-0.8.0-0.20111222233342gitd98cb57.el6.noarch
rubygem-aeolus-image-0.3.0-0.20111222173411gitc13b654.el6.noarch
rubygem-aeolus-cli-0.3.0-0.20111222173356git3cd6277.el6.noarch
aeolus-all-0.8.0-0.20111222233342gitd98cb57.el6.noarch
aeolus-configure-2.5.0-0.20111222173430git17b704a.el6.noarch
aeolus-conductor-0.8.0-0.20111222233342gitd98cb57.el6.noarch
aeolus-conductor-doc-0.8.0-0.20111222233342gitd98cb57.el6.noarch
Comment 1 Aziza Karol 2011-12-30 04:05:16 UTC 
Created attachment 550014 [details]
records deleted dispayed
Comment 2 John Eckersberg 2012-01-12 21:06:56 UTC 
*** Bug 767842 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 3 Tomas Hrcka 2012-02-08 14:36:51 UTC 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 786207 ***