Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.

Bug 2054552

Summary: Octavia dashboard implements incorrect specification for member's weight value
Product: Red Hat OpenStack Reporter: Tom Weininger <tweining>
Component: openstack-octavia-uiAssignee: Tom Weininger <tweining>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Bruna Bonguardo <bbonguar>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 16.1 (Train)CC: astupnik, bbonguar, beagles, lpeer, majopela, scohen
Target Milestone: z9Keywords: Triaged
Target Release: 16.1 (Train on RHEL 8.2)   
Hardware: All   
OS: All   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: openstack-octavia-ui-4.0.1-1.20220216123428.7404468.el8ost Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: 2043912 Environment:
Last Closed: 2022-12-07 20:25:48 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On: 2043912    
Bug Blocks:    

Description Tom Weininger 2022-02-15 08:28:50 UTC
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #2043912 +++

Description of problem:

In RHOSP 16.2 Octavia seems to support setting weight for LB Members from 0 to 256 [1] and it is impossible to set such weight using CLI. At the same time Horizon complains about 0 weight and informs user that he should set weight between 1 and 256.


[1]
https://github.com/openstack/octavia/blob/master/specs/version1.1/enable-provider-driver.rst

Comment 11 errata-xmlrpc 2022-12-07 20:25:48 UTC
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 (Red Hat OpenStack Platform 16.1.9 bug fix and enhancement 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-2022:8795