Bug 1335242 - re-initialization from accept-hosts page
Summary: re-initialization from accept-hosts page
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 1340502
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Storage Console
Classification: Red Hat Storage
Component: UI
Version: 2
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
low
Target Milestone: ---
: 2
Assignee: Karnan
QA Contact: sds-qe-bugs
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2016-05-11 16:16 UTC by Lubos Trilety
Modified: 2016-06-07 08:17 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-06-07 08:17:30 UTC
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Lubos Trilety 2016-05-11 16:16:24 UTC
Description of problem:
If some initialization fails during cluster creation, there's possibility to run initialization task from the same page, however the progress of that task is not displayed and so the host on this accept-hosts page seems to be failed even if the task succeeded.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
rhscon-ui-0.0.29-1.el7scon.noarch
rhscon-ceph-0.0.13-1.el7scon.x86_64
rhscon-core-0.0.16-1.el7scon.x86_64

How reproducible:
10%

Steps to Reproduce:
1. try to accept all hosts from accept-hosts page
2. run re-initialization for a host which initialization failed

Actual results:
The status of a host never change to success on the accept-hosts page and the progress bar is not displayed again.

Expected results:
After click on re-initialization the progress bar should be displayed again with initialization try. And when it finishes correctly the status should be success.

Additional info:

Comment 1 Martin Bukatovic 2016-06-06 10:41:07 UTC
Is this the same issue as described in BZ 1340502? If yes, I would suggest to
close this BZ 1335242 as a duplicate of BZ 1340502, even though that this BZ
was reported first, the other one contains more details including full
reproducer.

Comment 2 Lubos Trilety 2016-06-07 08:17:30 UTC
(In reply to Martin Bukatovic from comment #1)
> Is this the same issue as described in BZ 1340502? If yes, I would suggest to
> close this BZ 1335242 as a duplicate of BZ 1340502, even though that this BZ
> was reported first, the other one contains more details including full
> reproducer.

I agree that there's more information and the scenario is more precise in the other bug. Closing this as a duplicate.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1340502 ***


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