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

Make the channel input optional in the pre-upgrade template. #144

Closed

Conversation

stejskalleos
Copy link
Contributor

@stejskalleos stejskalleos commented Sep 25, 2024

With the optional input, other templates can render the pre-upgrade template without specifying the value.

For steps to reproduce, see https://issues.redhat.com/browse/SAT-28216

With the optional input, other templates can render the
pre-upgrade template without specifying the value.
@adamruzicka
Copy link
Contributor

In general +1, although there's one thing I can't wrap my head around.

In the webui, the field should get pre-populated with the default value from the template. When triggered from api (and hammer), the default value should be filled in somwhere inside the job invocation composer. All things considered, I would expect the value to get there one way or another. How comes we need to mark the input optional and to set the default in the template as well?

@stejskalleos
Copy link
Contributor Author

How comes we need to mark the input optional and to set the default in the template as well?

  1. Run pre-upgrade job on the EL 7 OS
  2. Go to pre-upgrade report tab on the job invocation detail page
  3. Select all remediations that have fix
  4. Click on "Fix remediations" (it will invoke new job invocation)

You will get an error about invalid input.

@stejskalleos
Copy link
Contributor Author

I forgot to link the issue: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/SAT-28216

@stejskalleos
Copy link
Contributor Author

🤔 If this should be fixed in the templates, or somewhere in the REX internals. Not that I want to shift my work to someone else (@adamruzicka 😄); just thinking about proper fix way

@stejskalleos
Copy link
Contributor Author

Closing in favor of #145

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants