Note: This is a beta release of Red Hat Bugzilla 5.0. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Also email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback here.

Bug 1516799

Summary: Openstack tenant's should not be visible under cloud provider drop down list while adding new tenant.
Product: Red Hat CloudForms Management Engine Reporter: Imaan <ikaur>
Component: ProvidersAssignee: Libor Pichler <lpichler>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: Dave Johnson <dajohnso>
Severity: high Docs Contact:
Priority: high    
Version: 5.9.0CC: cpelland, gblomqui, ikaur, jfrey, jhardy, lavenel, lsmola, obarenbo, tzumainn
Target Milestone: GA   
Target Release: 5.9.0   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard: testathon
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2018-01-09 14:22:23 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: Openstack
Attachments:
Description Flags
Image describe the issue none

Description Imaan 2017-11-23 11:40:23 UTC
Created attachment 1358166 [details]
Image describe the issue

Description of problem:

While adding a new tenant, existing tenants are visible under cloud provider drop down list.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

5.9.0.9.20171115202245_7429f75


How reproducible:
Always


Steps to Reproduce:

1. Login to Cloudforms Operational portal

2. Navigate to Compute-> Clouds-> Tenants-> Configuration-> Add a new tenant 

3. Choose Cloud Provider.


Actual results:

Existing tenants are visible under cloud provider drop down list.


Expected results:

It should display only cloud provider

Comment 4 Tzu-Mainn Chen 2018-01-09 14:14:23 UTC
Hi! As a clarification: keystone v3 allows for hierarchical tenants, so it's possible to create a tenant within another tenant. That would explain the reported behavior, which would then be correct.