Bug 801461
Summary: | manageRootDir counter-intuitive | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Other] RHQ Project | Reporter: | Tom Fonteyne <tfonteyn> | ||||
Component: | Provisioning | Assignee: | RHQ Project Maintainer <rhq-maint> | ||||
Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Mike Foley <mfoley> | ||||
Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |||||
Priority: | unspecified | ||||||
Version: | 4.2 | CC: | asantos, bkramer, dvanbale, hrupp, loleary | ||||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
Target Release: | --- | ||||||
Hardware: | All | ||||||
OS: | All | ||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
Last Closed: | 2012-03-10 00:49:09 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: | |||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Tom Fonteyne
2012-03-08 15:30:50 UTC
Also, note 2 issues above and beyond the basic issue of manageRootDir only applying to the root directory, and not subdirectories: 1) The first time the bundle is deployed, the entire contents of the props directory is preserved. It's only deleted on a subsequent deployment of the same bundle, with different values for the input properties 2) If a new version of the bundle is uploaded, which no longer deploys a file to the props directory, the content of that directory is still deleted, while the content of other directories is preserved. Closing this as NOT A BUG as the behavior described here is essentially the correct one. The cause for the confusion is a use case that was not implemented in the original design of provisioning bundle support and the introduction of the new manageRootDir property. In other words, prior to the introduction of this property, everything would be replaced on update/redeploy that was not in the ignore list in the recipe file. The bug that currently exists is that on the initial deploy, the undesired behavior described in the update/redeploy scenarios should have also occurred. However, such a bug may not exist if we can decide what the correct behavior should be. Bug 801926 has been captured to more specifically target the crux of this issue and the enhancement/feature consideration to alleviate the confusion and the inconsistent behavior. |