Bug 1199089 - incorrect behaviour of integer field when a very large number (i.e. larger than MaxInt) is being entered.
Summary: incorrect behaviour of integer field when a very large number (i.e. larger th...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 1168315
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Manager
Classification: Red Hat
Component: ovirt-engine-webadmin-portal
Version: 3.5.1
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
unspecified
low
Target Milestone: ---
: 3.6.0
Assignee: Alexander Wels
QA Contact: Martin Pavlik
URL:
Whiteboard: ux
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2015-03-05 13:03 UTC by Martin Pavlik
Modified: 2015-03-08 08:15 UTC (History)
8 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-03-08 08:15:26 UTC
oVirt Team: ---
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)
screenshot1 (68.33 KB, image/png)
2015-03-05 13:03 UTC, Martin Pavlik
no flags Details

Description Martin Pavlik 2015-03-05 13:03:45 UTC
Created attachment 998346 [details]
screenshot1

Description of problem:
if an extremely high value is put in the MTU field (e.g. 80000000000000000), the field is put in a red rectangle and tooltip says: This field cannot be empty

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Manager Version: 3.5.1-0.1.el6ev 

How reproducible:
100%

Actual results:
This field cannot be empty

Expected results:
Meaningful tooltip which would suggest allowed values for the field

Additional info:
there is a variation of the problem where the value put in gets deleted
1) go to edit network and input MTU 800000000
2) click OK, hit Esc
3) input MTU 8000000000, hit enter
value is deleted

Comment 1 Lior Vernia 2015-03-05 13:26:08 UTC
This is likely due to the number being bigger than the maximum Integer value in Java, while our IntegerValidation class tries to parse things as an Integer (rather than say BigInteger). Shouldn't be specific to the MTU field on the add/edit network dialog.

Comment 2 Alexander Wels 2015-03-06 16:07:25 UTC
The underlying cause is the same as bz1168315 which has a pending patch to solve the strange error messages and provide a clearer error message. If 8000000000 is a valid MTU value, we will have to change the type of the field to be BigInteger as Lior describes.

@Einav I think we can close as duplicate

Comment 3 Einav Cohen 2015-03-06 16:40:21 UTC
(In reply to Alexander Wels from comment #2)
> The underlying cause is the same as bz1168315 which has a pending patch to
> solve the strange error messages and provide a clearer error message. If
> 8000000000 is a valid MTU value, we will have to change the type of the
> field to be BigInteger as Lior describes.
> 
> @Einav I think we can close as duplicate

@Lior, are values larger than maximum-Integer valid as MTU values?

[if so, BZ should move back to 'network' (and the specific MTU field type should be changed to BigInteger, to my understanding) and should depend on Bug 1168315; otherwise, BZ can be closed as duplicate of Bug 1168315]

Comment 4 Lior Vernia 2015-03-08 08:15:26 UTC
Nah, there's no real use case for such values.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1168315 ***


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