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

Collect encryption status of cloud volume snapshot #259

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 14, 2017

Conversation

sasoc
Copy link
Contributor

@sasoc sasoc commented Jun 12, 2017

UI has encrypted attribute included, but it is rendered empty for the user.

Depends on: ManageIQ/manageiq#15352

@sasoc
Copy link
Contributor Author

sasoc commented Jun 12, 2017

cc @gberginc

@sasoc sasoc force-pushed the collect_encrypted_status_for_snapshot branch from 527788b to fa3587a Compare June 12, 2017 09:17
@@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ def refresh_spec_full

assert_specific_snapshot
assert_specific_volume
assert_unencrypted_snapshot
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Change the order - move assert_unencrypted_snapsthot before assert_specific_volume.

@gberginc
Copy link
Contributor

@miq-bot add_label pending core

@sasoc sasoc force-pushed the collect_encrypted_status_for_snapshot branch from fa3587a to 8515e62 Compare June 13, 2017 09:19
UI has encrypted attribute included, but it is rendered empty for the user.
@sasoc sasoc force-pushed the collect_encrypted_status_for_snapshot branch from 8515e62 to db86dc1 Compare June 13, 2017 09:27
@miq-bot
Copy link
Member

miq-bot commented Jun 13, 2017

Checked commit sasoc@db86dc1 with ruby 2.2.6, rubocop 0.47.1, and haml-lint 0.20.0
5 files checked, 0 offenses detected
Everything looks fine. 🍪

@gberginc
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks @sasoc. To me this looks better to have tests properly grouped.

@gberginc
Copy link
Contributor

@miq-bot remove_label pending core

@sasoc close and reopen this PR to rerun the checks.

@sasoc sasoc closed this Jun 13, 2017
@sasoc sasoc reopened this Jun 13, 2017
@gberginc
Copy link
Contributor

@Ladas can you review this one?

@Ladas Ladas self-assigned this Jun 14, 2017
Copy link
Contributor

@Ladas Ladas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks great 👍

@Ladas Ladas merged commit f4938ab into ManageIQ:master Jun 14, 2017
@Ladas Ladas added this to the Sprint 63 Ending Jun 19, 2017 milestone Jun 14, 2017
jrafanie added a commit to jrafanie/manageiq that referenced this pull request Jun 20, 2017
ManageIQ could have new columns added so we want to migrate/reset our
sample manageiq app's test db when running bin/setup or bin/update.

For a mostly unrelated PR [1] that was open for a while, another PR [2]
with a dependent migration on manageiq were both merged causing my
development branch for [1] to fail because I had already setup the
initial test database and bin/setup and bin/update were not migrating
the test database to include the newly added column.

[1] ManageIQ/manageiq-providers-amazon#256
[2] ManageIQ/manageiq-providers-amazon#259
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants