Bug 2142462 - Value of all the Fields (like Raw Capacity etc.) in Storagesystem page shows 0
Summary: Value of all the Fields (like Raw Capacity etc.) in Storagesystem page shows 0
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat OpenShift Data Foundation
Classification: Red Hat Storage
Component: ceph-monitoring
Version: 4.12
Hardware: ppc64le
OS: Linux
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
: ODF 4.14.0
Assignee: arun kumar mohan
QA Contact: Aaruni Aggarwal
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 2142763
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2022-11-14 05:14 UTC by Aaruni Aggarwal
Modified: 2024-03-08 04:25 UTC (History)
9 users (show)

Fixed In Version: 4.14.0-103
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2023-11-08 18:49:51 UTC
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)
Screenshot of storagesystem page (89.15 KB, image/png)
2022-11-14 05:14 UTC, Aaruni Aggarwal
no flags Details


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHSA-2023:6832 0 None None None 2023-11-08 18:51:03 UTC

Description Aaruni Aggarwal 2022-11-14 05:14:49 UTC
Created attachment 1924161 [details]
Screenshot of storagesystem page

Description of problem (please be detailed as possible and provide log
snippests):

Value of all the Fields (like Raw Capacity, Used Capacity, Latency etc.) in Storagesystem page shows 0

Version of all relevant components (if applicable):

OCP version - 4.12
ODF version - 4.12

Does this issue impact your ability to continue to work with the product
(please explain in detail what is the user impact)?
No

Is there any workaround available to the best of your knowledge?
No

Rate from 1 - 5 the complexity of the scenario you performed that caused this
bug (1 - very simple, 5 - very complex)?


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. Deploy ODF4.12 on OCP4.12 
2. Login to Web console and Navigate to Storage -> Data Foundation
3. Now click on Storagesystems tab from navbar and check all the values for the storagesystem


Actual results:
It shows values as 0B for all the fields like Raw Capacity.

Expected results:
It should show actual capacity.

Additional info:

Comment 14 arun kumar mohan 2023-04-10 06:11:19 UTC
Adding it back to QA. If it is still an issue, please re-open the BZ with steps.

Thanks,
Arun

Comment 16 Harish NV Rao 2023-05-25 05:57:24 UTC
(In reply to arun kumar mohan from comment #14)
> Adding it back to QA. If it is still an issue, please re-open the BZ with
> steps.
> 
> Thanks,
> Arun

Hi Arun,

IIUC, there is no fix (PR) done for this issue. You would like QE to retest it to see if the issue still persists based on the clarification you provided in comment 13. If yes, then ON_QA is not the right state. QE can retest and move it to closed state with resolution 'worksforme' if the issue is not reproduced. Could you please change the state to NEW/ASSIGNED?

Regards,
Harish

Comment 18 Harish NV Rao 2023-06-05 14:20:30 UTC
(In reply to Harish NV Rao from comment #16)
> (In reply to arun kumar mohan from comment #14)
> > Adding it back to QA. If it is still an issue, please re-open the BZ with
> > steps.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Arun
> 
> Hi Arun,
> 
> IIUC, there is no fix (PR) done for this issue. You would like QE to retest
> it to see if the issue still persists based on the clarification you
> provided in comment 13. If yes, then ON_QA is not the right state. QE can
> retest and move it to closed state with resolution 'worksforme' if the issue
> is not reproduced. Could you please change the state to NEW/ASSIGNED?
> 
> Regards,
> Harish

Arun, a gentle reminder ^^

Comment 19 arun kumar mohan 2023-06-06 08:52:40 UTC
Yes Harish, I want QE to retest it (as per comment#13) and check whether the issue is reproducible.
Moving it to 'NEW' state.

Comment 20 Sanjal Katiyar 2023-06-06 09:06:08 UTC
I remember there was a PR (diff BZ) which fixed this issue. Arun if u want u can add that PR to the BZ and move to ON_QA.

Comment 21 Mudit Agarwal 2023-06-06 12:14:57 UTC
Not a 4.13 blocker

Comment 30 Aaruni Aggarwal 2023-08-24 08:28:47 UTC
On IBM Power cluster, In Storagesystem tab, all the fields still shows 0.


ODF version: 

[root@rdr-odf-sc-lon06-bastion-0 ~]# oc get csv -A
NAMESPACE                              NAME                                          DISPLAY                       VERSION               REPLACES   PHASE
openshift-local-storage                local-storage-operator.v4.14.0-202307211703   Local Storage                 4.14.0-202307211703              Succeeded
openshift-operator-lifecycle-manager   packageserver                                 Package Server                0.19.0                           Succeeded
openshift-storage                      mcg-operator.v4.14.0-113.stable               NooBaa Operator               4.14.0-113.stable                Succeeded
openshift-storage                      ocs-operator.v4.14.0-113.stable               OpenShift Container Storage   4.14.0-113.stable                Succeeded
openshift-storage                      odf-csi-addons-operator.v4.14.0-113.stable    CSI Addons                    4.14.0-113.stable                Succeeded
openshift-storage                      odf-operator.v4.14.0-113.stable               OpenShift Data Foundation     4.14.0-113.stable                Succeeded


[root@rdr-odf-sc-lon06-bastion-0 ~]# oc version
Client Version: 4.14.0-ec.4
Kustomize Version: v5.0.1
Server Version: 4.14.0-ec.4
Kubernetes Version: v1.27.3+4aaeaec

[root@rdr-odf-sc-lon06-bastion-0 ~]# oc get clusterversion
NAME      VERSION       AVAILABLE   PROGRESSING   SINCE   STATUS
version   4.14.0-ec.4   True        False         2d      Cluster version is 4.14.0-ec.4

Attaching the screenshot as well. 
name of the attachment-> storagesystem-capacity-missing-odf414

Comment 32 Aaruni Aggarwal 2023-08-24 08:42:35 UTC
While in the cluster where ODF version is 

[root@rdr-odftest-lon06-bastion-0 ~]# oc get csv -A
NAMESPACE                              NAME                                          DISPLAY                       VERSION               REPLACES   PHASE
openshift-local-storage                local-storage-operator.v4.14.0-202307211703   Local Storage                 4.14.0-202307211703              Succeeded
openshift-operator-lifecycle-manager   packageserver                                 Package Server                0.19.0                           Succeeded
openshift-storage                      mcg-operator.v4.14.0-99.stable                NooBaa Operator               4.14.0-99.stable                 Succeeded
openshift-storage                      ocs-operator.v4.14.0-99.stable                OpenShift Container Storage   4.14.0-99.stable                 Succeeded
openshift-storage                      odf-csi-addons-operator.v4.14.0-99.stable     CSI Addons                    4.14.0-99.stable                 Succeeded
openshift-storage                      odf-operator.v4.14.0-99.stable                OpenShift Data Foundation     4.14.0-99.stable                 Succeeded


OC version:

[root@rdr-odftest-lon06-bastion-0 ~]# oc version
Client Version: 4.14.0-ec.4
Kustomize Version: v5.0.1
Server Version: 4.14.0-ec.4
Kubernetes Version: v1.27.3+4aaeaec

All the capacities are getting populated. 

Attaching the screenshot.

Comment 34 krishnaram Karthick 2023-11-02 11:10:29 UTC
Moving the bug to verified based on the above comment.

Comment 36 errata-xmlrpc 2023-11-08 18:49:51 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 (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

Comment 37 Red Hat Bugzilla 2024-03-08 04:25:14 UTC
The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 120 days


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.