Created attachment 1000353 [details] screenshot Description of problem: Inconsistent display of 'Attach All + Required All' checkboxes under Networks>Clusters and 'Manage Network' under Cluster If creating new network with 'Attach All + Required All' checkboxes unchecked, there is inconsistent display of this boxes. - Under Networks>Cluster i see the 2 of this checkboxes as unchecked. - But if i'm entering the 'Manage Network' under Cluster, i see the 'Required All' checkboxes as checked. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 3.5.1-0.1.el6ev 3.5.0-0.34.el6ev 3.6.0-0.0.master.20150310185308.git3c75f38.el6 How reproducible: 100 Steps to Reproduce: 1. Create new network with unchecked 'Attach All + Required All' checkboxes and approve operation 2. Look the Networks>Cluster for this checkboxes 3. Look in 'Manage Network' under cluster Actual results: Both places display different things. Expected results: Should be consistent display of this checkboxes in GUI.
So the problem is that the disabled required checkboxes in the dialog appear as marked by default. They could be changed to appear unmarked, and by default be marked as required whenever a network is ticked to be assigned to a cluster (to maintain the default for netowrks to be required in a cluster).
It seems that now the 'required all' and 'assigned all' checkboxes completely stopped working (in both of the dialogs). Checking and unchecking them doesn't affect anything.
Raising priority and severity due to comment #2.
Hi Eliraz, Yaniv Like Alona wrote in comment 2 above ^^ 'required all' and 'assigned all' checkboxes completely stopped working in both dialogs. And she is right, so, is this current BZ will fix this as well? or should i report new BZ ?
(In reply to Michael Burman from comment #4) > Hi Eliraz, Yaniv > > Like Alona wrote in comment 2 above ^^ 'required all' and 'assigned all' > checkboxes completely stopped working in both dialogs. And she is right, so, > is this current BZ will fix this as well? or should i report new BZ ? I would open a separate bug, not the same use case.
Done. See also - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1257168
Verified on - 3.6.1-0.2.el6