Bug 1247016 - Duplicate providers can be added
Summary: Duplicate providers can be added
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat CloudForms Management Engine
Classification: Red Hat
Component: Providers
Version: 5.4.0
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
medium
medium
Target Milestone: GA
: 5.6.0
Assignee: Greg Blomquist
QA Contact: Aziza Karol
URL:
Whiteboard: provider:validation:tenant
: 1287834 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks: 1290224 1291887
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2015-07-27 07:26 UTC by Aziza Karol
Modified: 2023-09-14 03:02 UTC (History)
7 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
: 1291887 (view as bug list)
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-05-27 15:16:07 UTC
Category: ---
Cloudforms Team: ---
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Aziza Karol 2015-07-27 07:26:44 UTC
Created attachment 1056471 [details]
duplicate providers

Description of problem:


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
5.4.1

How reproducible:
100%

Steps to Reproduce:
1.First add provider for ex: rhevm with hostname 
2.Then Add the same provider with ip address
3.

Actual results:
Duplicate providers can be added. see attached screenshots. All VMs and Templates listed twice.

Expected results:
Validation required

Additional info:

Comment 5 Greg Blomquist 2015-07-30 13:41:38 UTC
I have no idea how we could prevent this, to be honest.

I'll leave this up to John Hardy to decide how critical an issue this is.

Comment 6 Dave Johnson 2015-07-30 15:57:54 UTC
Keenan, on today's bug triage call we discussed this a probably a good thing as its required for tenancy moving forward.  It sounds like we could probably do some validation in the screens to ensure that the same provider cannot be added with the same tenant.  Ultimately this was a change introduce with the ipv6 work when ip address was a unique field and now the field is ip or hostname.  

Its up in the air and may not even be valid but wanted to throw in you direction to consider while working on tenancy.

Comment 10 Greg Blomquist 2016-04-02 00:42:08 UTC
*** Bug 1287834 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 11 Greg Blomquist 2016-05-27 15:16:07 UTC
I'm closing this as wontfix.

The code required to prevent this seems problematic and could easily have unintended side effects (accidentally preventing a valid provider from being added because of old DNS records, or whatever), especially when balanced against allowing a situation that no customer has yet hit.

Comment 12 Red Hat Bugzilla 2023-09-14 03:02:35 UTC
The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 1000 days


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