Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.

Bug 876674

Summary: Application launch fails - Cannot add VM. VM with the same name already exists.
Product: [Retired] CloudForms Cloud Engine Reporter: James Laska <jlaska>
Component: aeolus-conductorAssignee: Angus Thomas <athomas>
Status: CLOSED EOL QA Contact: Rehana <aeolus-qa-list>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 1.1.0CC: srevivo
Target Milestone: rcKeywords: Triaged
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-03-27 18:35:34 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Attachments:
Description Flags
Screenshot.png
none
aeolus-debug-20121114120745.tar.gz none

Description James Laska 2012-11-14 17:17:12 UTC 
Created attachment 645023 [details]
Screenshot.png

Description of problem:

Attempting to launch an application to a provider fails because an application of the same name already exists on the provider.  Note, the application name is unique in the Cloud Engine pool.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
 * aeolus-conductor-0.13.24-1.el6cf.src.rpm
 * aeolus-configure-2.8.11-1.el6cf.src.rpm
 * imagefactory-1.0.2-1.el6cf.src.rpm
 * iwhd-1.5-2.el6.src.rpm
 * oz-0.8.0-6.el6cf.src.rpm

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Deploy 2 instances of cloudengine
2. Build and push the same system template in each Cloud Engine instance (use the *same* image name)
3. Deploy an application to RHEV using the *same* name on each Cloud Engine Instance
  
Actual results:

Attempting to launch the second image fails (see screenshot) ...

> 14-Nov-2012 16:34:36: Instance rhel-x86-64-6Server-Dev/rhel-x86_64-6Server rhel-x86-64-6Server-Dev/rhel-x86_64-6Server: 500 : Unhandled exception or status code (Cannot add VM. VM with the same name already exists.) 

> 14-Nov-2012 16:34:37: Failed to launch deployment : Unable to find a suitable Cloud Resource Provider Account to host the Application. Check the quota of the Cloud Resource Provider Accounts and the status of the Images. 

Expected results:

Either ...

Maybe ... don't allow the user to select an application name if it's already in-use on the provider?

It seems weird that the launch would fail due to a naming conflict with a deployed app from another instance.

Additional info:
Comment 1 James Laska 2012-11-14 17:17:49 UTC 
Created attachment 645024 [details]
aeolus-debug-20121114120745.tar.gz
Comment 3 Scott Seago 2012-11-14 17:26:30 UTC 
"Maybe ... don't allow the user to select an application name if it's already in-use on the provider?"

This won't work, since the name is chosen before the provider is selected.

More realistically, I think conductor should change the name field for the provider as appropriate (adding some sort of pool ID, etc). We already have an issue where some providers have name field restrictions, etc. that don't apply elsewhere.

The main thing is this -- the user-facing name (i.e. the conductor "instance name") doesn't have to be the same as what's on the provider, so conductor can truncate, append, mangle, etc. as needed to come up with a name that works on the provider, but still show the user the original name. This would require a minor model change (tracking user-facing name and provider-facing name), but we need this already for the other BZ (I don't have the # now) dealing with provider-imposed name length limits.