Bug 960635

First problem that needs a fix related to the specific error that the error doesn't contain the name of the image file, it's not properly replaced and will make troubleshooting more difficult: 
"Drive image file %s could not be found".

Second - regarding the multiple logging, it looks as this is not a storage related problem, but rather happens for many different commands.
Perhaps the bug should be splitted to handle the first issue in storage area, and the multiple logging to be handled on infra level - Ayal, your input on this?
The multiple logging is done in the following places:

BrokerCommandBase --> ProceedProxyReturnValue
VDSCommandBase --> setVdsRuntimeError

(In reply to Alissa from comment #1)
> First problem that needs a fix related to the specific error that the error
> doesn't contain the name of the image file, it's not properly replaced and
> will make troubleshooting more difficult: 
> "Drive image file %s could not be found".

This means that we're lacking this information in the log?

> 
> Second - regarding the multiple logging, it looks as this is not a storage
> related problem, but rather happens for many different commands.
> Perhaps the bug should be splitted to handle the first issue in storage
> area, and the multiple logging to be handled on infra level - Ayal, your
> input on this?
> The multiple logging is done in the following places:
> 
> BrokerCommandBase --> ProceedProxyReturnValue
> VDSCommandBase --> setVdsRuntimeError

Sounds reasonable to me.
Please clone it, rename both to reflect the relevant problems etc.

(In reply to Ayal Baron from comment #2)
> (In reply to Alissa from comment #1)
> > First problem that needs a fix related to the specific error that the error
> > doesn't contain the name of the image file, it's not properly replaced and
> > will make troubleshooting more difficult: 
> > "Drive image file %s could not be found".
> 
> This means that we're lacking this information in the log?
yes. I think the incomplete message is originated like this in vdsm so the bug should be moved from engine to vdsm component - this is how it's declared in define.py (and it's not defined like this in engine code):
  'imageErr': {'status': {
        'code': 13,
        'message': 'Drive image file %s could not be found'}},

> > Second - regarding the multiple logging, it looks as this is not a storage
> > related problem, but rather happens for many different commands.
> > Perhaps the bug should be splitted to handle the first issue in storage
> > area, and the multiple logging to be handled on infra level - Ayal, your
> > input on this?
> > The multiple logging is done in the following places:
> > 
> > BrokerCommandBase --> ProceedProxyReturnValue
> > VDSCommandBase --> setVdsRuntimeError
> 
> Sounds reasonable to me.
> Please clone it, rename both to reflect the relevant problems etc.

This bug is currently attached to errata RHBA-2013:15291. If this change is not to be documented in the text for this errata please either remove it from the errata, set the requires_doc_text flag to 
minus (-), or leave a "Doc Text" value of "--no tech note required" if you do not have permission to alter the flag.

Otherwise to aid in the development of relevant and accurate release documentation, please fill out the "Doc Text" field above with these four (4) pieces of information:

* Cause: What actions or circumstances cause this bug to present.
* Consequence: What happens when the bug presents.
* Fix: What was done to fix the bug.
* Result: What now happens when the actions or circumstances above occur. (NB: this is not the same as 'the bug doesn't present anymore')

Once filled out, please set the "Doc Type" field to the appropriate value for the type of change made and submit your edits to the bug.

For further details on the Cause, Consequence, Fix, Result format please refer to:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/page.cgi?id=fields.html#cf_release_notes 

Thanks in advance.

Hi could you tell me how this was fixed, for the errata text? Thanks

I updated the doctext field.
Thanks, Charlie.