Fix issue with security group selection box display #10849
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## 4.19 #10849 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 4.28% 15.17% +10.88%
- Complexity 0 11342 +11342
============================================
Files 371 5415 +5044
Lines 29700 475325 +445625
Branches 5211 58003 +52792
============================================
+ Hits 1274 72128 +70854
- Misses 28281 395133 +366852
- Partials 145 8064 +7919
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
|
@DaanHoogland a Jenkins job has been kicked to build UI QA env. I'll keep you posted as I make progress. |
|
UI build: ✔️ |
|
tested in qa as whitebox test. |
| params.securitygroupids = values.securitygroupids | ||
| } | ||
| if (this.securityGroupsEnabled && Array.isArray(values.securitygroupids) && values.securitygroupids.length > 0) { | ||
| params.securitygroupids = values.securitygroupids |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
does this work? I saw a similar code block yesterday where we were using it like the following,
params.securitygroupids = values.securitygroupids.join(',')
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I tested this in QA, @shwstppr. The only thing not working is clearing the list of security groups completely. Which, I think, is a separate issue.
What do you think might happen when not calling join(‘,’)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@DaanHoogland, that was just a question from my side. I've not tested it and do not know if it makes any difference at the moment. If it is already tested then 👍
Description
This PR is based off: #10224 required to be address in 4.19.
The main fix here is the listZones API which incorrectly uses
zoneidas opposed toidin the api params.Types of changes
Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity
Bug Severity
Screenshots (if appropriate):
How Has This Been Tested?
How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?