Bug 1400999 - Fusor Installer won't start installation with domain 3 or more levels deep
Summary: Fusor Installer won't start installation with domain 3 or more levels deep
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 1389092
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Quickstart Cloud Installer
Classification: Red Hat
Component: fusor-installer
Version: 1.1
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
: ---
Assignee: Jason Montleon
QA Contact: Sudhir Mallamprabhakara
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2016-12-02 14:17 UTC by Landon LaSmith
Modified: 2017-01-19 14:38 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-12-02 14:44:54 UTC
Target Upstream Version:

Attachments (Terms of Use)
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Bugzilla 1389092 0 unspecified CLOSED domain name can include spaces 2021-02-22 00:41:40 UTC

Internal Links: 1389092

Description Landon LaSmith 2016-12-02 14:17:28 UTC 
Description of problem: If a domain greater than 2 levels deep is specified during fusor-installer setup it won't start the install and returns the error:  "Unable to proceed because of the following errors: Domain does not appear to be valid".  

fusor_undercloud_installer is not affected by this issue

QCI Media Version: QCI-1.1-RHEL-7-20161201.t.1
QCIOOO Media Version: QCIOOO-10.0-RHEL-7-20161130.t.1

How reproducible: 100%

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Install QCI from iso
2. Start fusor-installer
3. Specify domain with 3 or more levels <hostname>.qci.foo.bar
4. Start the fusor installer installation

Actual results: Fusor installer will not start the install and returns: "Unable to proceed because of the following errors: Domain does not appear to be valid"

Expected results: fusor-installer allows valid domains of any size
Comment 2 Jason Montleon 2016-12-02 14:29:08 UTC 
Will be fixed shortly. There is a '?' in the new validator that should be a '*'.
Comment 3 Landon LaSmith 2016-12-02 14:44:54 UTC 
Closing this to track under BZ1389092

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1389092 ***
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.