Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 859503
If launch is selected when an application named the same as blueprint already exists an error is thrown
Last modified: 2016-09-20 01:02:51 EDT
Description of problem:
If a user launches an application from a blueprint using the blueprint's name and then returns to the catalog and selects "launch" again on the same application blueprint an error will appear stating "Name has already been taken" . This seems like a logic problem, because the user did not set the name, but it is already filled in. It would appear that we could:
1. Not set the application name and only check for a duplicate name when "next" is selected.
2. Generate a Unique Identifier (still user friendly like the way Amazon names each AMI)
Either way, we should not alarm that the name is already taken when the blueprint is only selected.
See screenshots for more.
Created attachment 615527 [details]
Created attachment 615528 [details]
For me the first approach is user-friendlier, so fixed in that way. The pull request sent:
ACK'd and pushed to master/1.1:
Author: Imre Farkas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Mon Sep 24 13:39:54 2012 +0200
BZ #859503: laucn new deployment button on deployables#show redirects to deployments#launch_new instead of deploy
(cherry picked from commit 081f3d2e188a6b4e3b53d9e313a6ab8c0f9cee73)
Just for clarification, the user is now redirected to the form where the name of the deployment can be set. So the error message without any user interaction is gone but the name remains the same even if there's an existing one.
1.Try to launch a application with Blueprint name--->Success
2.Tried again the above and got the message "Name already taken" before pressing the next button.
"Not set the application name and only check for a duplicate name when "next" is selected." recommendation is applied.
Verified on :
[root@dhcp201-113 ~]# rpm -qa |grep aeolus
Created attachment 618534 [details]
Created attachment 618535 [details]
application Blueprint name error
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, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.
If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.