Bug #2877
closedWhen a deployment is disallowed because of CFEngine check, no message is given about what is wrong
Description
A deployment may be forbidden because we check the validity of the generated promises with cf-check.
But when that check is wrong, nothing useful is reported in the deployment box, and so the user does not have any way to correct what is wrong.
That seems almost a blocker for the final for me, because if not corrected, that imply that user will need a deep knowledge of cfengine and what could have been wrong with the last modification they did to resolve that kind of erroneous deployment. (ex: the use of a "\" in a directive property may lead to such errors, or #2041).
Updated by Jonathan CLARKE over 12 years ago
- Target version changed from 2.4.0~rc1 to 2.4.0~rc2
Updated by Jonathan CLARKE over 12 years ago
- Status changed from New to 2
- Assignee set to Nicolas CHARLES
Updated by Nicolas CHARLES over 12 years ago
- Status changed from 2 to Pending technical review
- % Done changed from 0 to 100
Applied in changeset 73ba5a66b19d83841a990a67d385e94003ed9b50.
Updated by François ARMAND over 12 years ago
- Status changed from Pending technical review to Released
Updated by François ARMAND over 12 years ago
- Status changed from Released to Discussion
- Assignee changed from Nicolas CHARLES to Jonathan CLARKE
That seems technically OK.
Jon, do you want to look at the look'n'feel to see if the result is OK ?
Perhaps I would like to have a more obvious thing saying that "technical details" is clickable.
You can see an error by putting a " (double quote) in a MOTD directive message. The directive must be applied to at least one node.
Updated by Nicolas CHARLES over 12 years ago
- Status changed from Discussion to Pending technical review
Applied in changeset 811c1e03184e989cfaa769aa6121af37ee1dea4b.
Updated by Nicolas PERRON over 12 years ago
- Target version changed from 2.4.0~rc2 to 2.4.0~beta5
Updated by Jonathan CLARKE over 12 years ago
- Status changed from Pending technical review to Released
François ARMAND wrote:
That seems technically OK.
Jon, do you want to look at the look'n'feel to see if the result is OK ?
Perhaps I would like to have a more obvious thing saying that "technical details" is clickable.
Looks good to me! Feel free to improve the UI if you like, but I think that should be in a different ticket now.