Hide Forgot
dwh plugin of engine-setup says: Please note: Data Warehouse is required for the engine. If you choose to not configure it on this host, you have to configure it on a remote host, and then configure the engine on this host so that it can access the database of the remote Data Warehouse host. Configure Data Warehouse on this host (Yes, No) [Yes]: It should probably not prompt at all. +++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1360363 +++ Description of problem: If choosing 'No' when asked about DWH, engine-setup says: The engine requires access to the Data Warehouse database. Data Warehouse was not set up. Please set it up on some other machine and configure access to it on the engine. It does this also if dwh is set up remotely. It should not. It can check this either by checking dwhHostname in engine db table dwh_history_timekeeping or, since 4.0, by checking if we have access to dwh db.
Bug tickets must have version flags set prior to targeting them to a release. Please ask maintainer to set the correct version flags and only then set the target milestone.
To clarify, flow for current bug is: 1. Install and setup engine on machine A 2. Install and setup dwh on machine B, using the engine on machine A 3. Install dwh-setup on machine A 4. Run engine-setup on machine A This flow is not very realistic in itself, but it's actually the same as the following, which is: 1. Install and setup 3.6 engine on machine A 2. Install and setup 3.6 dwh on machine B using the engine on machine A 3. Backup the engine on machine A to file1 4. Install 4.0 engine on machine A2 5. Restore file1 on A2 6. Run engine-setup on A2 (This is because dwh-setup is required by the engine in 4.0).
BTW, unlike bug 1360363, here the question is asked only once - engine-setup remembers the answer and does not ask again on further runs.
(In reply to Yedidyah Bar David from comment #2) > > 1. Install and setup 3.6 engine on machine A > 2. Install and setup 3.6 dwh on machine B using the engine on machine A > 3. Backup the engine on machine A to file1 > 4. Install 4.0 engine on machine A2 > 5. Restore file1 on A2 > 6. Run engine-setup on A2 > This will indeed prompt as in comment 0, but will also later: An existing DWH is configured to work with this engine. Its hostname is didi-rhel6-dwh.eng.lab.tlv.redhat.com. A positive answer to the following question will cause the existing DWH to be permanently disconnected from the engine. A negative answer will stop Setup. Do you want to permanently disconnect this DWH from the engine? (Yes, No) [No]:
So perhaps instead of not prompting at all, reverse the order of these checks.
Yaniv, what do you think? I agree current flow isn't perfect, but not sure we can do much more. I do not think it's risky. A user following the described flow and then pressing Enter accepting all defaults, will simply have engine-setup exit. Then this user will have to understand what happened, and decide whether to keep the existing separate dwh (thus replying 'No' to 'Configure Data Warehouse on this host?'), or to configure a local dwh instead, thus replying 'Yes' to "permanently disconnect this DWH?". In the past we decided that we want both flows to be possible, thus can't just drop the question as I wrote in comment 0. Also reversing the order doesn't seem very elegant to me - the questions are grouped, and the first group is 'PRODUCT OPTIONS', and I do not think it will make lots of sense to put stuff before that. I suggest to close wontfix.
Agreed this looks acceptable.