1191990 – User shouldn't be allowed to create alias/bond interface without specifying identifier in "attached_to/Attached_devices" respectively"

Red Hat Satellite engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on Satellite to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "Satellite project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs will be migrated starting at the end of May. If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "Satellite project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/SAT-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.

Bug 1191990 - User shouldn't be allowed to create alias/bond interface without specifying identifier in "attached_to/Attached_devices" respectively"

Summary: User shouldn't be allowed to create alias/bond interface without specifying i...

Keywords:
Status:	CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias:	None
Product:	Red Hat Satellite
Classification:	Red Hat
Component:	WebUI
Sub Component:
Version:	6.1.0
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Priority:	unspecified
Severity:	medium
Target Milestone:	Unspecified
Assignee:	Marek Hulan
QA Contact:	Katello QA List
Docs Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:	1193987
TreeView+	depends on / blocked

Reported:	2015-02-12 11:02 UTC by Sachin Ghai
Modified:	2017-02-23 20:32 UTC (History)
CC List:	2 users (show)
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:	2015-02-18 07:56:18 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Attachments	(Terms of Use)

Description Sachin Ghai 2015-02-12 11:02:34 UTC

Description of problem:
User shouldn't be allowed to create alias interface without specifying identifier of physical interface in "attached_to" and similarly for bond interface

From the add_interface form its seems "attached_to" is the mandatory option. But user can create interface without specifying it.

Also bond interface can be created without specifying Attached devices.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Satellite-6.1.0-RHEL-6-20150210.0
Sat6.1.0 beta snap2

How reproducible:
always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Add interface from 'New host form'
type=interface and virtual NIC should be checked
2. do not specify anything in "attached_to"
3. similarly create bond interface type without specify anything in "Attached devices"

Actual results:
interface form saved successfully

Expected results:
User should get validation error.

Additional info:

Comment 1 RHEL Program Management 2015-02-12 11:13:13 UTC

Since this issue was entered in Red Hat Bugzilla, the release flag has been
set to ? to ensure that it is properly evaluated for this release.

Comment 3 Marek Hulan 2015-02-17 15:43:21 UTC

So there are two different things in this BZ and I think neither of them is a bug.

1) VLAN and alias attached_to field
If you check Virtual NIC checkbox, then the "Attached to" field is required (marked with *). When you add this interface, modal window disappears but it does not save interface. It becomes a part of host form as a new table row. Now when you hit submit you'll see validation error (as for any other host attribute). So you must specify "Attached to" value.

2) Bond and attached devices field
For bonds you can but does not have to enter any device identifier, note that there's no * at that field. You can create a Bond, provisioning template would create a config file but would not set any other interface to be part of this bond. This may be used to create bonds to which you later add interfaces (not during provisioning). Also people may use these for documentation purposes only and not checking managed flag, in which case it's also optional to specify attached devices.

Should I close as Not a bug?

Comment 4 Sachin Ghai 2015-02-18 07:56:18 UTC

(In reply to Marek Hulan from comment #3)
> So there are two different things in this BZ and I think neither of them is
> a bug.
> 
> 1) VLAN and alias attached_to field
> If you check Virtual NIC checkbox, then the "Attached to" field is required
> (marked with *). When you add this interface, modal window disappears but it
> does not save interface. It becomes a part of host form as a new table row.
> Now when you hit submit you'll see validation error (as for any other host
> attribute). So you must specify "Attached to" value.
> 

Closing this since form validation happens at submit form not at save interface.


> 2) Bond and attached devices field
> For bonds you can but does not have to enter any device identifier, note
> that there's no * at that field. You can create a Bond, provisioning
> template would create a config file but would not set any other interface to
> be part of this bond. This may be used to create bonds to which you later
> add interfaces (not during provisioning). Also people may use these for
> documentation purposes only and not checking managed flag, in which case
> it's also optional to specify attached devices.
> 
> Should I close as Not a bug?

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