Description of problem: It is possible to successfully create quota entry with any text word instead of valid project ID. This is misleading for customers: they successfully create quotas with project names instead of project IDs, but those quotas are not enforced. How reproducible: The following command may look like a command that adds a quota for admin tenant, but instead it creates a dummy record in cinder DB: cinder quota-update --volumes 3 admin MariaDB [cinder]> SELECT * FROM quotas WHERE project_id="admin"; +----+---------------------+------------+------------+---------+------------+----------+------------+-----------+ | id | created_at | updated_at | deleted_at | deleted | project_id | resource | hard_limit | allocated | +----+---------------------+------------+------------+---------+------------+----------+------------+-----------+ | 6 | 2018-05-03 09:41:49 | NULL | NULL | 0 | admin | volumes | 3 | 0 | +----+---------------------+------------+------------+---------+------------+----------+------------+-----------+ Here is an entry for valid cinder quota: MariaDB [cinder]> SELECT * FROM quotas WHERE project_id="602c2a16e060483f997193a314d0b9c7" AND resource="volumes"; +----+---------------------+---------------------+------------+---------+----------------------------------+----------+------------+-----------+ | id | created_at | updated_at | deleted_at | deleted | project_id | resource | hard_limit | allocated | +----+---------------------+---------------------+------------+---------+----------------------------------+----------+------------+-----------+ | 9 | 2018-05-03 10:02:00 | 2018-05-03 10:09:06 | NULL | 0 | 602c2a16e060483f997193a314d0b9c7 | volumes | 9 | 0 | +----+---------------------+---------------------+------------+---------+----------------------------------+----------+------------+-----------+ Actual results: cinder creates misleading quota entries in DB Expected results: cinder asks to use valid project_id
*** Bug 1650027 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 1653755 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
It's interesting this is low/low, considering we have 2 customer cases here, and it's a usability issue. Do we have any forecast for fixing this?
(In reply to Yaniv Kaul from comment #8) > It's interesting this is low/low, considering we have 2 customer cases here, > and it's a usability issue. Do we have any forecast for fixing this? Not at the moment, but it still useful to be fixed.
Also seeing that on OSP13: overcloud) [stack@director ~]$ cinder quota-update --volumes -1 ma_soeur +----------------------+-------+ | Property | Value | +----------------------+-------+ | backup_gigabytes | 1000 | | backups | 10 | | gigabytes | 1000 | | gigabytes_ontap | -1 | | gigabytes_solidfire | -1 | | groups | 10 | | per_volume_gigabytes | -1 | | snapshots | 10 | | snapshots_ontap | -1 | | snapshots_solidfire | -1 | | volumes | -1 | | volumes_ontap | -1 | | volumes_solidfire | -1 | +----------------------+-------+ (overcloud) [stack@director ~]$ 3:11 (overcloud) [stack@director ~]$ cinder quota-show ma_soeur +----------------------+-------+ | Property | Value | +----------------------+-------+ | backup_gigabytes | 1000 | | backups | 10 | | gigabytes | 1000 | | gigabytes_ontap | -1 | | gigabytes_solidfire | -1 | | groups | 10 | | per_volume_gigabytes | -1 | | snapshots | 10 | | snapshots_ontap | -1 | | snapshots_solidfire | -1 | | volumes | -1 | | volumes_ontap | -1 | | volumes_solidfire | -1 | +----------------------+-------+ (overcloud) [stack@director ~]$ openstack project show ma_soeur No project with a name or ID of 'ma_soeur' exists.