Description of problem: When a SCVMM provider has both clustered and unclustered hosts the unclustered hosts are omitted from the relationship tree. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: see above Expected results: unclustered hosts should sit alongside the clusters in the relationship tree Additional info:
New commit detected on manageiq/master: https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq/commit/ec89e6fcef29991836a6e33f8e60ccf0dd15c65f commit ec89e6fcef29991836a6e33f8e60ccf0dd15c65f Author: Bronagh Sorota <bsorota> AuthorDate: Mon Feb 16 13:30:06 2015 -0500 Commit: Bronagh Sorota <bsorota> CommitDate: Mon Feb 16 14:27:26 2015 -0500 Unclustered hosts are missing from relationship tree when a cluster is present https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1193183 vmdb/app/models/ems_refresh/parsers/scvmm.rb | 14 +++++++++----- .../models/ems_refresh/refreshers/scvmm_refresher_spec.rb | 5 +++-- 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
Hi Milan, I think screenshot #2 tells you which hosts are part of a cluster and which are stand alone. You can also go to: - Open the Provider view of an SCVMM provider - On the top right corner click on Host & Clusters (Under 'relationships') - Make sure the correct hosts are grouped under the cluster they belong to and make sure any standalone hosts are shown outside the clusters.
Verified (5.4.0.0.26)
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. https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2015-1100.html