Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Handle case where do_volume_creation_check gets a nil from Fog #73

Merged

Conversation

mansam
Copy link
Contributor

@mansam mansam commented Jul 31, 2017

do_volume_creation_check assumes it will always get the requested volume object back from Fog, resulting in a thrown exception and an errored-out provisioning attempt if that assumption is violated due to the requested volume not being found. This fixes the assumption, allowing the provisioning workflow to continue and retry as normal.

This fixes the surface level issue in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475260, though it doesn't explain why a 404 would be reported for an ID that came from Fog in the first place.

@miq-bot
Copy link
Member

miq-bot commented Jul 31, 2017

Checked commit mansam@9a3fc95 with ruby 2.2.6, rubocop 0.47.1, and haml-lint 0.20.0
2 files checked, 0 offenses detected
Everything looks fine. 🍰

@tzumainn
Copy link
Contributor

tzumainn commented Aug 1, 2017

Looks good!

@tzumainn tzumainn merged commit 752420b into ManageIQ:master Aug 1, 2017
@tzumainn tzumainn added this to the Sprint 66 Ending Aug 7, 2017 milestone Aug 1, 2017
@simaishi
Copy link
Contributor

Fine backport (to manageiq repo) details:

$ git log -1
commit 3bf47be83a48e61b4e6b24485c596caee6ce7012
Author: tzumainn <tzumainn@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue Aug 1 16:14:45 2017 -0400

    Merge pull request #73 from mansam/dont-crash-provision-if-volume-not-found
    
    Handle case where do_volume_creation_check gets a nil from Fog
    (cherry picked from commit 752420bc07b2b4f606be119656e2eccc4b297374)
    
    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1482170

d-m-u added a commit to d-m-u/manageiq-providers-openstack that referenced this pull request Jun 29, 2020
more core ext's on 4.1.0

update for update sake

https://github.com/ManageIQ/more_core_extensions/compare/179bf40..e5b4501
 - Added Ruby 2.7 support [[ManageIQ#79](ManageIQ/more_core_extensions#79)]
 - Added Process#pause, Process#resume, and Process#alive? [[ManageIQ#73](ManageIQ/more_core_extensions#73)]

array added * `#compact_map` - Collect non-nil results from the block
array added `#tabular_sort` - Sorts an Array of Hashes by specific columns

hierarchy added `#descendant_get` - Returns the descendant with a given name

the two breaking changes:
- **BREAKING**: Moved Object#descendant_get to Class#descendant_get [[ManageIQ#75](ManageIQ/more_core_extensions#75)]
- **BREAKING**: Removed deprecated Enumerable#stable_sort_by [[ManageIQ#76](ManageIQ/more_core_extensions#76)]

a minor header output change was made that hasn't been released yet to make tableize more markdown compliant

see ManageIQ/linux_admin#221
d-m-u added a commit to d-m-u/manageiq-providers-openstack that referenced this pull request Jul 14, 2020
more core ext's on 4.1.0

update for update sake

https://github.com/ManageIQ/more_core_extensions/compare/179bf40..e5b4501
 - Added Ruby 2.7 support [[ManageIQ#79](ManageIQ/more_core_extensions#79)]
 - Added Process#pause, Process#resume, and Process#alive? [[ManageIQ#73](ManageIQ/more_core_extensions#73)]

array added * `#compact_map` - Collect non-nil results from the block
array added `#tabular_sort` - Sorts an Array of Hashes by specific columns

hierarchy added `#descendant_get` - Returns the descendant with a given name

the two breaking changes:
- **BREAKING**: Moved Object#descendant_get to Class#descendant_get [[ManageIQ#75](ManageIQ/more_core_extensions#75)]
- **BREAKING**: Removed deprecated Enumerable#stable_sort_by [[ManageIQ#76](ManageIQ/more_core_extensions#76)]

a minor header output change was made that hasn't been released yet to make tableize more markdown compliant

see ManageIQ/linux_admin#221
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants