Bug 811639
Summary: | 'No users selected' error when changing the same 'Role Assignment' in two different browsers | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Retired] CloudForms Cloud Engine | Reporter: | Ronelle Landy <rlandy> | ||||||
Component: | aeolus-conductor | Assignee: | Tzu-Mainn Chen <tzumainn> | ||||||
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | wes hayutin <whayutin> | ||||||
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||||
Priority: | unspecified | ||||||||
Version: | 1.0.0 | CC: | akarol, deltacloud-maint, dmacpher, hbrock, juwu, ssachdev, sseago | ||||||
Target Milestone: | rc | Keywords: | Triaged | ||||||
Target Release: | --- | ||||||||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||||||||
OS: | Linux | ||||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||||
Doc Text: |
When an user tried to modify permissions that changed in another browser, the wrong error message displayed:
"No users selected"
This bug fix updates the validation in permissions_controller.rb so that the appropriate error message is displayed.
|
Story Points: | --- | ||||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||||
Last Closed: | 2012-12-04 15:03:16 UTC | Type: | Bug | ||||||
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
Ronelle Landy
2012-04-11 15:26:31 UTC
This is definitely a bug -- but I wouldn't lump it into the 'auto refresh' discussion. We should be moving away from the notion that _every page_ should auto-refresh. We should only auto-refresh pages with expected changes. This is a webapp, not a fat client. If every element of every page is auto-refreshed, we'll be making unnecessary scaling and performance problems for ourselves. Regardless of the autorefresh question, though, any web app is supposed to re-validate the assumptions embedded in the submitted form. This is why we re-check permissions on the submit that we already checked when displaying the form -- in case things changed while the user was looking at the page, we still do the right thing. What appears to be happening here is that the validation is doing the wrong thing when we get a form submission to change something to what is already its current value. It's probably saying "no users selected" because what was submitted is already what's in the database. In the case where a user _was_ selected but the admin was trying to change something to what it is already set to, we should probably just accept it and refresh the page -- possibly with a message that "this role was already $foo" rather than "this role was changed to $foo" i.e. the user got what he wanted even if we didn't have to change the db to do it. Pushed to master: commit d182ba99ca7552ddf2488b478d820df7b9057694 BZ 811639 - during permission multi_update, change error message if no modifications needed And 1.1: commit 5bf2b26721169f69d16250cedd085674db927688 BZ 811639 - during permission multi_update, change error message if no modifications needed (cherry picked from commit d182ba99ca7552ddf2488b478d820df7b9057694) Tested rpms:
>> rpm -qa |grep aeolus
aeolus-configure-2.8.7-1.el6cf.noarch
rubygem-aeolus-image-0.3.0-12.el6.noarch
rubygem-aeolus-cli-0.7.2-1.el6cf.noarch
aeolus-conductor-0.13.14-1.el6cf.noarch
aeolus-conductor-daemons-0.13.14-1.el6cf.noarch
aeolus-conductor-doc-0.13.14-1.el6cf.noarch
aeolus-all-0.13.14-1.el6cf.noarch
Keeping two browser ( one chrome and one FF) open to the same conductor instance, with thesame admin user logging in in both, I could not make a conflicting change that was not registered as such :).
See attached screenshot of the result of trying to modify the permissions of a user for whom the admin user has already revoked access in the second browser.
Marking this BZ as 'verified'.
Created attachment 617189 [details]
Permissions change on deleted user
Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2012-1516.html |