Bug 1001835 – module_name parameter for fence_drac5 is optional, not required

Bug 1001835 - module_name parameter for fence_drac5 is optional, not required

Summary:	module_name parameter for fence_drac5 is optional, not required

Status:	CLOSED ERRATA

Aliases:	None

Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
Classification:	Red Hat
Component:	luci (Show other bugs)
Sub Component:
Version:	6.5
Hardware:	Unspecified Unspecified

Priority	unspecified Severity unspecified
Target Milestone:	rc
Target Release:	---
Assigned To:	Jan Pokorný
QA Contact:	Cluster QE
Docs Contact:

URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:	EasyFix

Depends On:
Blocks:
	Show dependency tree / graph

Reported:	2013-08-27 17:46 EDT by Jan Pokorný
Modified:	2013-11-21 05:33 EST (History)
CC List:	3 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:	luci-0.26.0-42.el6
Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:	Cause: Luci incorrectly considers "module_name" (Module Name) parameter of Dell DRAC 5 fence device to be mandatory. Consequence: Such fence device cannot be added with "module_name" omitted. Fix: Luci now correctly considers this parameter to be optional. Result: Such fence device now can be added with omitted module name.
Story Points:	---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:	2013-11-21 05:33:47 EST
Type:	Bug
Regression:	---
Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---

Attachments	(Terms of Use)
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Groups: None (edit)

Description Jan Pokorný 2013-08-27 17:46:29 EDT

SSIA.

Discovered-By: Steven Levine
(Thanks for the level of care!)

Comment 2 Jan Pokorný 2013-08-28 10:58:15 EDT

Situation:
- drac5 fence agent is to be added
- omit module_name as it is (metadata, documentation) optional,
  otherwise everything should conform to the set expectations

Before:
- luci will not accept/validate the user's request
  (due to module_name being omitted)

After:
- luci will accept/validate the user's request

Comment 7 errata-xmlrpc 2013-11-21 05:33:47 EST

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/RHSA-2013-1603.html

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.