Project

General

Profile

Actions
Copy link

Bug #11917

closed

No compliance from a Rule with only one Directive (from a technique created in the editor) when the Directive is also applied in another Rule

Bug #11917: No compliance from a Rule with only one Directive (from a technique created in the editor) when the Directive is also applied in another Rule

Added by Nicolas CHARLES about 8 years ago. Updated about 6 years ago.

Status:
Released
Priority:
N/A
Assignee:
Vincent MEMBRÉ
Category:
Web - Compliance & node report
Target version:
5.0.15
Pull Request:
https://github.com/Normation/rudder/p...
Severity:
Minor - inconvenience | misleading | easy workaround
UX impact:
User visibility:
Operational - other Techniques | Technique editor | Rudder settings
Effort required:
Very Small
Priority:
0
Name check:
Reviewed
Fix check:
Error - Fixed
Regression:

Description

(i tried my best to have an understandable title...)

Assuming a Technique A, in the Technique Editor, and a Directive D1 based on this Technique, and a Rule R1 with D1 with a large number of node as a target

If we create a Rule R2, with D1 and a sub-set of nodes of R1 as a target, we have the following behaviour:
  1. R2 is shown as "In application"
  2. Compliance is non existent for R2 (spinning wheel)
  3. Compliance by node and directive is empty for R2

We should display more clearly that Directive in R2 is erased, and that this specific Rule is not applied

Subtasks 5 (0 open — 5 closed)

Bug #16185: "skipped" directive appears even if directive is not skipped in ruleReleasedVincent MEMBRÉActions
Bug #16232: Directive based on a multivalued technique are not marked overridenReleasedNicolas CHARLESActions
Bug #16280: Directives appears both skipped and enforceReleasedNicolas CHARLESActions
Bug #16293: Skipped directives are not displayed anymore - againRejectedFrançois ARMANDActions
Bug #16310: Directive skipped in several place appear duplicatedReleasedNicolas CHARLESActions

Related issues 1 (0 open — 1 closed)

Related to Rudder - User story #7616: Overriden directives are not listed in reports informationReleasedFrançois ARMANDActions

Updated by Benoît PECCATTE about 8 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #1

  • User visibility set to Operational - other Techniques | Technique editor | Rudder settings
  • Priority changed from 0 to 32

Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ almost 8 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #2

  • Target version changed from 4.1.10 to 4.1.11

Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ almost 8 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #3

  • Target version changed from 4.1.11 to 4.1.12
  • Priority changed from 32 to 31

Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ almost 8 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #4

  • Target version changed from 4.1.12 to 4.1.13

Updated by Benoît PECCATTE over 7 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #5

  • Target version changed from 4.1.13 to 411

Updated by Benoît PECCATTE over 7 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #6

  • Target version changed from 411 to 4.1.13

Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ over 7 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #7

  • Target version changed from 4.1.13 to 4.1.14
  • Priority changed from 31 to 30

Updated by Benoît PECCATTE over 7 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #8

  • Target version changed from 4.1.14 to 4.1.15
  • Priority changed from 30 to 29

Updated by François ARMAND over 7 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #9

  • Priority changed from 29 to 28

Hum, that strange, why the directive is not written "overriden" since https://www.rudder-project.org/redmine/issues/7616 ? (I tested again today on 4.3). Missing case when the rule is totally empty?

Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ over 7 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #10

  • Target version changed from 4.1.15 to 4.1.16

Updated by François ARMAND over 7 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #11

  • Related to User story #7616: Overriden directives are not listed in reports information added

Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ over 7 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #12

  • Target version changed from 4.1.16 to 4.1.17

Updated by François ARMAND over 7 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #13

  • Effort required set to Very Small
  • Priority changed from 28 to 53

"very small" to at least try to assess the problem.

Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ about 7 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #14

  • Target version changed from 4.1.17 to 4.1.18
  • Priority changed from 53 to 0

Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ about 7 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #15

  • Target version changed from 4.1.18 to 4.1.19

Updated by Alexis Mousset about 7 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #16

  • Target version changed from 4.1.19 to 4.1.20

Updated by François ARMAND almost 7 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #17

  • Target version changed from 4.1.20 to 4.1.21

Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ almost 7 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #18

  • Target version changed from 4.1.21 to 4.1.22

Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ almost 7 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #19

  • Target version changed from 4.1.22 to 4.1.23

Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ over 6 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #20

  • Target version changed from 4.1.23 to 4.1.24

Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ over 6 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #21

  • Target version changed from 4.1.24 to 588

Updated by Benoît PECCATTE over 6 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #22

  • Target version changed from 588 to 5.0.13

Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ over 6 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #23

  • Target version changed from 5.0.13 to 5.0.14

Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ over 6 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #24

  • Target version changed from 5.0.14 to 5.0.15

Updated by François ARMAND over 6 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #25

  • Status changed from New to In progress
  • Assignee set to François ARMAND

Updated by François ARMAND over 6 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #26

=> in 5.0.15, we correctly have the overrides value of BoundPolicyDraft set during MergePolicyService#merge.

So the problem is not in that part.

Updated by François ARMAND over 6 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #27

computeExpectedReports has the correct overrides.

But the base don't have the correct rules override ???

Updated by François ARMAND over 6 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #28

OK, the overrides in DB are correct - so it's just a display problem.

Updated by François ARMAND over 6 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #29

  • Status changed from In progress to Pending technical review
  • Assignee changed from François ARMAND to Vincent MEMBRÉ
  • Pull Request set to https://github.com/Normation/rudder/pull/2594

Updated by François ARMAND over 6 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #30

  • Status changed from Pending technical review to Pending release

Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ over 6 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #31

  • Fix check set to To do

Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ over 6 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #32

  • Name check set to To do

Updated by Alexis Mousset over 6 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #33

  • Subject changed from No compliance from a Rule with only one Directive, based on a Technique made with Technique Editor, when the Directive is also applied in another Rule to No compliance from a Rule with only one Directive (from a technique created in the editor) when the Directive is also applied in another Rule
  • Name check changed from To do to Reviewed

Updated by François ARMAND about 6 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #34

It seems that the latter changes in that part of the code (either #16185 or the refactoring for performance on rudder/rudder-core/src/main/scala/com/normation/rudder/services/reports/ReportingService.scala broke the correction.

Updated by François ARMAND about 6 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #35

  • Fix check changed from To do to Error - Blocking

Updated by François ARMAND about 6 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #36

  • Fix check changed from Error - Blocking to Error - Fixed

Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ about 6 years ago Actions
Copy link
 #37

  • Status changed from Pending release to Released

This bug has been fixed in Rudder 5.0.15 which was released today.

Actions
Copy link

Also available in: PDF Atom