Description of problem (please be detailed as possible and provide log snippests): Currently it is possible to create and register the same storage with the same IP more than once on ODF, which users should probably be blocked from doing so and the ability to do it should be disabled. Version of all relevant components (if applicable): Does this issue impact your ability to continue to work with the product (please explain in detail what is the user impact)? This issue does not prevent the user from creating and registering the same storage even if it already exists. Is there any workaround available to the best of your knowledge? I believe the best course of action is to block and alert the user when attempting to create and register a storage that already exists on ODF with the same IP address. Rate from 1 - 5 the complexity of the scenario you performed that caused this bug (1 - very simple, 5 - very complex)? 1 Can this issue reproducible? Yes Can this issue reproduce from the UI? Yes If this is a regression, please provide more details to justify this: Steps to Reproduce: 1.Create StorageSystem on ODF UI with storage IP x.x.x.x 2.Create the same StorageSystem on ODF UI, with also storage IP x.x.x.x Actual results: See that it's created again Expected results: User should be prevented from creating and registering it again. Additional info:
Moving it to console
Just to clarify, I'm specifically talking about IBM StorageSystem, but this could also be a general ODF issue.
Any updates by any chance?
Hi @nthomas , @vbadrina Could we please get an update on the ticket as its been a couple months since opened Thanks
(In reply to Alon Firestein from comment #5) > Hi @nthomas , @vbadrina > > Could we please get an update on the ticket as its been a couple months > since opened > > Thanks Hi, We are planning to introduce custom extensions in our odf-console repo, using which any new StorageSystem vendor can add their own UI/components to StorageSystem creation wizard at runtime. This needs creation of few new custom extensions,testing them and some refactoring of our existing code as well (for now, we will restructure our repo and create a different package/directory for IBM StorageSystem and all IBM SS related UI will be served from there). We are still having discussions around it, will surely add u guys as well if needed. Thanks.
Hi @badhikar We saw the changes that were made on the attached PR link. Is it possible for a quick recap and explanation of the changes on your end in the PR as there seems that many things changed and not just for the IP duplication registration. In addition, which version will be the first to support this change, 4.13? And if there are any changes that might be required from our end, please let us know so that we will need to make the necessary adjustments. Thanks again.
Hi @alon.firestein PR: https://github.com/red-hat-storage/odf-console/pull/676 is merged in downstream (4.13), I am assigning this BZ to you now, please feel free to contribute the fix. Also, in case of any concerns/doubt, please feel free to reach out to us.
I am moving it to 4.14 as there is not much time left for 4.13 release...
(In reply to Alon Firestein from comment #3) > Just to clarify, I'm specifically talking about IBM StorageSystem, but this > could also be a general ODF issue. Sanjal, does this BZ require IBM StorageSystem to verify? If not, how to verify without it?
Hi, Yes, it requires IBM FlashSystem StorageSystem creation from the UI, 2 StorageSystems in-fact using same IP address. We cannot verify this without that. If needed, we might want to get in touch with alon.firestein (Alon Firestein) and bvered.com (Vered Berenstein) from the IBM team.
(In reply to Sanjal Katiyar from comment #28) > Hi, > Yes, it requires IBM FlashSystem StorageSystem creation from the UI, 2 > StorageSystems in-fact using same IP address. We cannot verify this without > that. > > If needed, we might want to get in touch with alon.firestein (Alon > Firestein) and bvered.com (Vered Berenstein) from the IBM team. Thanks Sanjal. We tried our best to get it verified on actual IBM setup but no luck. We plan to verify this fix based on regression testing. Any specific tests you suggest?
nothing from my side, regression testing sounds good to me for now.
Marking it as verified based on the successful execution of StorageSystem and UI related regression test cases, confirming the absence of defects.
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 (Important: Red Hat OpenShift Data Foundation 4.14.0 security, enhancement & bug fix update), 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/RHSA-2023:6832
The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 120 days