Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because
the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.
Red Hat Satellite engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on Satellite to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "Satellite project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs will be migrated starting at the end of May. If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "Satellite project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/SAT-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
Created attachment 1139506[details]
rule having '0' priority should be applied first instead of rule with priority '1'
Description of problem: I created two discovery rules.
1) rule1 with priority '1'
2) rule2 with priority '0'
but when I auto provision a discovered host, host always provisioned with rule1.
As we know, the 'lower integer means higher priority' so I think rule2 should apply first instead of rule1.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Sat6.2 beta snap4
How reproducible:
Steps to Reproduce:
1. create discovery rule 1 with priority '1'
2. create another rule 2 with priority '0'
3. discovered a host and auto provision via rule
Actual results:
host provisioned with rule 1
Expected results:
since '0' integer has higher priority so, host should provision via rule'2'
Additional info:
Verified with sat6.2 beta snap6
Now rule with lower priority applied first. The reported issue has been fixed. Please see the attached screenshot for verification, where two hosts were auto provisioned by rule2 who has priority '0' set
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-2016:1501
Created attachment 1139506 [details] rule having '0' priority should be applied first instead of rule with priority '1' Description of problem: I created two discovery rules. 1) rule1 with priority '1' 2) rule2 with priority '0' but when I auto provision a discovered host, host always provisioned with rule1. As we know, the 'lower integer means higher priority' so I think rule2 should apply first instead of rule1. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Sat6.2 beta snap4 How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. create discovery rule 1 with priority '1' 2. create another rule 2 with priority '0' 3. discovered a host and auto provision via rule Actual results: host provisioned with rule 1 Expected results: since '0' integer has higher priority so, host should provision via rule'2' Additional info: