Project

General

Profile

Actions
Copy link

Bug #20828

closed

Architecture #20747: Use a unique id to identify reports

Unexpected/missing for same component, same value

Added by François ARMAND about 2 years ago. Updated about 2 years ago.

Status:
Released
Priority:
N/A
Assignee:
Nicolas CHARLES
Category:
Web - Compliance & node report
Target version:
7.1.0~beta1
Pull Request:
https://github.com/Normation/rudder/p...
Severity:
UX impact:
User visibility:
Effort required:
Priority:
0
Name check:
To do
Fix check:
To do
Regression:

Description

In the following case, we get 1 success, 1 missing, 1 unexpected because the expected reports are not correctly generated: we have 3 times 'vim' in place of two time htop and one time vim:

[2022-02-25 15:34:29+0000] TRACE explain_compliance.root - Expected reports for rule '32377fd7-02fd-43d0-aab7-28460a91347b':
 [expected] DirectiveExpectedReports(DirectiveId(DirectiveUid(2947648e-2521-473d-9274-07bd5c38a701),Revision(default)),None,false,List(
  ValueExpectedReport(Package present,List(ExpectedValueId(vim,dd3d7bf4-231d-4434-ad80-61367690f0da))), 
  ValueExpectedReport(Package present,List(ExpectedValueId(vim,4a542919-f5a0-43b6-a756-fa8d96e758db))), 
  ValueExpectedReport(Package present,List(ExpectedValueId(vim,26d74f7b-673a-4554-82ee-6e7bfb56433d)))))

[2022-02-25 15:34:29+0000] TRACE explain_compliance.root - Reports for rule '32377fd7-02fd-43d0-aab7-28460a91347b':
 [report] ResultSuccessReport(2022-02-25T15:34:28.000Z,RuleId(RuleUid(32377fd7-02fd-43d0-aab7-28460a91347b),Revision(default)),DirectiveId(DirectiveUid(2947648e-2521-473d-9274-07bd5c38a701),Revision(default)),NodeId(root),dd3d7bf4-231d-4434-ad80-61367690f0da,Package present,htop,2022-02-25T15:34:25.000Z,Presence of package htop in any version  was correct)
 [report] ResultSuccessReport(2022-02-25T15:34:28.000Z,RuleId(RuleUid(32377fd7-02fd-43d0-aab7-28460a91347b),Revision(default)),DirectiveId(DirectiveUid(2947648e-2521-473d-9274-07bd5c38a701),Revision(default)),NodeId(root),4a542919-f5a0-43b6-a756-fa8d96e758db,Package present,htop,2022-02-25T15:34:25.000Z,Presence of package htop in any version  was correct)
 [report] ResultSuccessReport(2022-02-25T15:34:28.000Z,RuleId(RuleUid(32377fd7-02fd-43d0-aab7-28460a91347b),Revision(default)),DirectiveId(DirectiveUid(2947648e-2521-473d-9274-07bd5c38a701),Revision(default)),NodeId(root),26d74f7b-673a-4554-82ee-6e7bfb56433d,Package present,vim,2022-02-25T15:34:25.000Z,Presence of package vim in any version  was correct)

[2022-02-25 15:34:29+0000] TRACE explain_compliance.root - Compliance for rule '32377fd7-02fd-43d0-aab7-28460a91347b': [[root: 32377fd7-02fd-43d0-aab7-28460a91347b; run: 2022-02-25T15:34:25.000Z;20220225-153403-b10c0977->2022-02-25T15:44:25.000Z]
  compliance:[p:0 s:1 r:0 e:0 u:2 m:2 nr:0 na:0 rd:0 c:0 ana:0 nc:0 ae:0 bpm:0]
  [2947648e-2521-473d-9274-07bd5c38a701 =>
    Package present:[htop(<-> htop):[Unexpected:"Presence of package htop in any version  was correct"],vim(<-> vim):[Missing:"[Missing report #0]"]]
    Package present:[htop(<-> htop):[Unexpected:"Presence of package htop in any version  was correct"],vim(<-> vim):[Missing:"[Missing report #0]"]]
    Package present:[vim(<-> vim):[Success:"Presence of package vim in any version  was correct"]]
]]

It's OK if we use exactly same component name and values:

[2022-02-25 15:34:05+0000] TRACE explain_compliance.root - Expected reports for rule '32377fd7-02fd-43d0-aab7-28460a91347b':
 [expected] DirectiveExpectedReports(DirectiveId(DirectiveUid(2947648e-2521-473d-9274-07bd5c38a701),Revision(default)),None,false,List(
ValueExpectedReport(htop,List(ExpectedValueId(htop,dd3d7bf4-231d-4434-ad80-61367690f0da))), 
ValueExpectedReport(htop,List(ExpectedValueId(htop,4a542919-f5a0-43b6-a756-fa8d96e758db))), 
ValueExpectedReport(vim,List(ExpectedValueId(vim,26d74f7b-673a-4554-82ee-6e7bfb56433d)))))

[2022-02-25 15:34:05+0000] TRACE explain_compliance.root - Reports for rule '32377fd7-02fd-43d0-aab7-28460a91347b':
 [report] ResultSuccessReport(2022-02-25T15:30:58.000Z,RuleId(RuleUid(32377fd7-02fd-43d0-aab7-28460a91347b),Revision(default)),DirectiveId(DirectiveUid(2947648e-2521-473d-9274-07bd5c38a701),Revision(default)),NodeId(root),dd3d7bf4-231d-4434-ad80-61367690f0da,htop,htop,2022-02-25T15:30:55.000Z,Presence of package htop in any version  was correct)
 [report] ResultSuccessReport(2022-02-25T15:30:58.000Z,RuleId(RuleUid(32377fd7-02fd-43d0-aab7-28460a91347b),Revision(default)),DirectiveId(DirectiveUid(2947648e-2521-473d-9274-07bd5c38a701),Revision(default)),NodeId(root),4a542919-f5a0-43b6-a756-fa8d96e758db,htop,htop,2022-02-25T15:30:55.000Z,Presence of package htop in any version  was correct)
 [report] ResultSuccessReport(2022-02-25T15:30:58.000Z,RuleId(RuleUid(32377fd7-02fd-43d0-aab7-28460a91347b),Revision(default)),DirectiveId(DirectiveUid(2947648e-2521-473d-9274-07bd5c38a701),Revision(default)),NodeId(root),26d74f7b-673a-4554-82ee-6e7bfb56433d,vim,vim,2022-02-25T15:30:55.000Z,Presence of package vim in any version  was correct)

[2022-02-25 15:34:05+0000] TRACE explain_compliance.root - Compliance for rule '32377fd7-02fd-43d0-aab7-28460a91347b': [[root: 32377fd7-02fd-43d0-aab7-28460a91347b; run: 2022-02-25T15:30:55.000Z;20220225-153403-b10c0977->2022-02-25T15:40:55.000Z]
  compliance:[p:0 s:3 r:0 e:0 u:0 m:0 nr:0 na:0 rd:0 c:0 ana:0 nc:0 ae:0 bpm:0]
  [2947648e-2521-473d-9274-07bd5c38a701 =>
    htop:[htop(<-> htop):[Success:"Presence of package htop in any version  was correct"]]
    htop:[htop(<-> htop):[Success:"Presence of package htop in any version  was correct"]]
    vim:[vim(<-> vim):[Success:"Presence of package vim in any version  was correct"]]
]]

Files

testing_unexpected_reports.json (1.79 KB) testing_unexpected_reports.json Félix DALLIDET, 2022-03-09 11:54

Related issues 1 (0 open — 1 closed)

Related to Rudder - Bug #20880: Removed report in compliance when calling several times the command_execution with same valueReleasedFélix DALLIDETActions
Actions
Copy link
 #1

Updated by François ARMAND about 2 years ago

Confirmed that the problem is on the expected report side:

    {
      "ruleId":"32377fd7-02fd-43d0-aab7-28460a91347b",
      "directives":[
        {
          "directiveId":"2947648e-2521-473d-9274-07bd5c38a701",
          "isSystem":false,
          "components":[
            {
              "componentName":"Package present",
              "values":[
                {
                  "value":"vim",
                  "id":"dd3d7bf4-231d-4434-ad80-61367690f0da" 
                }
              ]
            },
            {
              "componentName":"Package present",
              "values":[
                {
                  "value":"vim",
                  "id":"4a542919-f5a0-43b6-a756-fa8d96e758db" 
                }
              ]
            },
            {
              "componentName":"Package present",
              "values":[
                {
                  "value":"vim",
                  "id":"26d74f7b-673a-4554-82ee-6e7bfb56433d" 
                }
              ]
            }
          ]
        }
      ]
    },

And technique.json is ok, and technique.cf is ok too (which was expected, since from the agent side, everything is fine).

Actions
Copy link
 #2

Updated by François ARMAND about 2 years ago

  • Status changed from New to In progress
  • Assignee set to François ARMAND
Actions
Copy link
 #3

Updated by François ARMAND about 2 years ago

ACTUALLY .

It is not correct, there is 3 VIM here, not just one.

It may have been between two generation on different tests. So it seems (for now) that:

- the expected reports are not correct,
- because in policy generation, RuleExpectedReportBuilder.componentsFromVariables can't build the correct components,
- because there is only one pvars,
- because Policy/policyDraft/etc are not correctly differentiating each var (report id is ignored, only component name is used)

Actions
Copy link
 #4

Updated by François ARMAND about 2 years ago

  • Status changed from In progress to Pending technical review
  • Assignee changed from François ARMAND to Nicolas CHARLES
  • Pull Request set to https://github.com/Normation/rudder/pull/4194
Actions
Copy link
 #5

Updated by Félix DALLIDET about 2 years ago

I had a similar issue on a 7.1-alpha1 on Debian11. I will attach the minimal technique I used to reproduce.
It just contains 2 almost identical method calls in a block, and it breaks the reporting.

Actions
Copy link
 #6

Updated by François ARMAND about 2 years ago

  • Status changed from Pending technical review to Pending release
Actions
Copy link
 #7

Updated by François ARMAND about 2 years ago

  • Related to Bug #20880: Removed report in compliance when calling several times the command_execution with same value added
Actions
Copy link
 #8

Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ about 2 years ago

  • Status changed from Pending release to Released

This bug has been fixed in Rudder 7.1.0~beta1 which was released today.

Actions
Copy link

Also available in: Atom PDF