Bug #18877: "Skipped" Directives on Rules Screen - Rudder - Issue Tracker

Actions

Copy link

Bug #18877

closed

"Skipped" Directives on Rules Screen

Added by Lars Koenen about 3 years ago. Updated about 3 years ago.

Status:

Released

Priority:

N/A

Assignee:

Vincent MEMBRÉ

Category:

Web - Config management

Target version:

6.1.10

Pull Request:

https://github.com/Normation/rudder/p...

Severity:

UX impact:

User visibility:

Effort required:

Priority:

Name check:

To do

Fix check:

Error - Fixed

Regression:

Description

This is a bug report related to the following conversation in gitter.
https://gitter.im/normation/rudder?at=601835cc1ed88c58d81391ec

Rudder Version is 6.2.1

When i look at the details of a rule in the Rule Screen, several directives are shown as "skipped" under "Compliance by Directive". The problem is that these directives were not added to the rule.
This happens not only with one rule but with several.

For example, I have a rule that has only two directives "d1" and "d2". This rule is applied to the group of all VMs. When I then look at the "Compliance by Directive" section, Rudder shows me 31 other skipped directives "d3" - "d33" that I never added to the rule.

What I additionally do not understand. If I then hover with the mouse over the "skipped" tag, Rudder says:
"This directive is skipped, because it is overriden by an other one on that node"
"...on that Node" Which Node? I have only added groups.

Overall, I find it strange that at this place Directives are displayed as "skipped". Is this the way it should be?
I would only expect something like this in the rules overview of a single node.

EDIT: moreover, rules with skipped directives are duplicated in node compliance (from node screen).

Files

Download all files

clipboard-202102032145-sjpea.png (28.7 KB) clipboard-202102032145-sjpea.png		François ARMAND, 2021-02-03 21:45
clipboard-202102032148-bdqft.png (29.6 KB) clipboard-202102032148-bdqft.png		François ARMAND, 2021-02-03 21:48
clipboard-202102032149-y0luh.png (38.6 KB) clipboard-202102032149-y0luh.png		François ARMAND, 2021-02-03 21:49

Subtasks 1 (0 open — 1 closed)

Actions

Copy link

Updated by François ARMAND about 3 years ago

Thanks for reporting. This is indeed very strange.

Actions

Copy link

Updated by François ARMAND about 3 years ago

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

Actions

Copy link Download all files

Updated by François ARMAND about 3 years ago

File clipboard-202102032145-sjpea.png clipboard-202102032145-sjpea.png added
File clipboard-202102032148-bdqft.png clipboard-202102032148-bdqft.png added
File clipboard-202102032149-y0luh.png clipboard-202102032149-y0luh.png added

OK, I can reproduce.

I have a case where it makes sense, but the wording it bad:

Here, on that rule, we have one directive skipped because of one other directive on the same rule. It should not say "on that node", but "on that rule" and skippe the end part which is redondant.

I have also a case where it doesn't make any sense. On an other rule, I have only one directive:

But the compliance part of the rule screen still displays on directive from another rule to tell us it is skipped (but one directive on that same other rule, ie it's the previous example):

So: very likely, we are looking for all possible skipped directive on all nodes (because we compute compliance by node) but when we aggregate by rule for the compliance by rule, we are not filtering the skipped one for the given rule.

Actions

Copy link