Bug 1297951 - [RFE] Support dynamic fields in service dialogs
Summary: [RFE] Support dynamic fields in service dialogs
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat CloudForms Management Engine
Classification: Red Hat
Component: UI - OPS
Version: 5.5.0
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
high
Target Milestone: GA
: 5.6.0
Assignee: eclarizi
QA Contact: Shveta
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 1297953
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2016-01-12 20:24 UTC by Greg McCullough
Modified: 2016-06-29 15:28 UTC (History)
9 users (show)

Fixed In Version: 5.6.0.0
Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
: 1297953 (view as bug list)
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-06-29 15:28:12 UTC
Category: ---
Cloudforms Team: ---
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHBA-2016:1348 0 normal SHIPPED_LIVE CFME 5.6.0 bug fixes and enhancement update 2016-06-29 18:50:04 UTC

Description Greg McCullough 2016-01-12 20:24:15 UTC
Description of problem: Service with dynamic fields cannot be ordered through the Self Service UI.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 5.5


How reproducible: Always


Steps to Reproduce:
1. Create a Service Dialog that uses dynamic dialog fields and connect it to a Catalog Item.
2. Order the catalog item from the self-service UI
3.

Actual results:
Self-Service UI reports "Service Template Contains Unsupported Provision Dialog Types."

Expected results:
Self-Service UI supports ordering service with dynamic dialog fields

Additional info:

Comment 3 Shveta 2016-05-13 20:31:39 UTC
Fixed.
Verified in 5.6.0.6-beta2.5.20160511140943_ff75fb2

Comment 5 errata-xmlrpc 2016-06-29 15:28:12 UTC
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://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2016:1348


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