Bug 795829 - CloudSDK: find_by_uuid requires more than just uuid
Summary: CloudSDK: find_by_uuid requires more than just uuid
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: OKD
Classification: Red Hat
Component: Pod
Version: 2.x
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
high
medium
Target Milestone: ---
: ---
Assignee: Krishna Raman
QA Contact: libra bugs
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2012-02-21 15:50 UTC by Thomas Wiest
Modified: 2015-05-15 01:46 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2012-03-02 21:56:35 UTC
Target Upstream Version:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Thomas Wiest 2012-02-21 15:50:03 UTC
Description of problem:
While running rhc-admin-move using only the app's uuid, I get the following error:


/usr/bin/rhc-admin-move:66:in `find_by_uuid': wrong number of arguments
(1 for 2) (ArgumentError)
         from /usr/bin/rhc-admin-move:66


Talking to Dan McPherson, he said that apparently the find_by_uuid method has changed from only requiring a uuid before, to now requiring a uuid and a user to be passed in, which kind of defeats the purpose of find_by_uuid.


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
rhc-broker-0.86.10-1.el6_2.noarch
rhc-selinux-0.86.3-1.el6_2.noarch
rhc-common-0.76.1-1.el6_2.noarch
rhc-0.86.7-1.el6_2.noarch
rhc-server-common-0.86.1-1.el6_2.noarch
rhc-site-0.86.10-1.el6_2.noarch


How reproducible:
Very


Steps to Reproduce:
1. Try to move an application using only the app's uuid:
    e.g.: rhc-admin-move --app_uuid ec85904507794b9fb86d71a6e7a2ce66
2. Notice the error as pasted above


Actual results:
/usr/bin/rhc-admin-move:66:in `find_by_uuid': wrong number of arguments
(1 for 2) (ArgumentError)
         from /usr/bin/rhc-admin-move:66


Expected results:
It should move the application


Additional info:
None

Comment 1 Krishna Raman 2012-02-23 17:28:45 UTC
Fixed in fc27873f2b18e53a3e47b1135d21ab840ea3ec9b

Comment 2 Dan McPherson 2012-02-23 21:23:27 UTC
Did you test this?  I don't see how it could possibly work.

Comment 3 Krishna Raman 2012-02-23 23:17:31 UTC
Application.user was not being properly populated.
Fixed again in 48384285fc5d22b7ffcd103d5178739e9bb4a41e

Comment 4 Meng Bo 2012-02-29 09:18:13 UTC
verified on devenv_1649, issue has been fixed.


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