Ovirt devel - Oct 2009 - [PATCH] fix storages crazyness

Signed-off-by: Loiseleur Michel <mloiseleur at linagora.com>
---
 app/models/vm.rb |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/app/models/vm.rb b/app/models/vm.rb
index 88e0aef..0be3f89 100644
--- a/app/models/vm.rb
+++ b/app/models/vm.rb
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ class Vm < ActiveRecord::Base
       find(:all, :conditions=>{:state=>Task::STATE_QUEUED})
     end
   end
-  has_and_belongs_to_many :storage_volumes
+  has_and_belongs_to_many :storage_volumes, :uniq => true
 
   has_many :nics, :dependent => :destroy
 
-- 
1.6.2.5

Hi,

Just to point you this patch, which is quite important and not ACK at
the moment.

Thanks,

Loiseleur Michel a ?crit :
> Signed-off-by: Loiseleur Michel <mloiseleur at linagora.com>
> ---
>  app/models/vm.rb |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/app/models/vm.rb b/app/models/vm.rb
> index 88e0aef..0be3f89 100644
> --- a/app/models/vm.rb
> +++ b/app/models/vm.rb
> @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ class Vm < ActiveRecord::Base
>        find(:all, :conditions=>{:state=>Task::STATE_QUEUED})
>      end
>    end
> -  has_and_belongs_to_many :storage_volumes
> +  has_and_belongs_to_many :storage_volumes, :uniq => true
>  
>    has_many :nics, :dependent => :destroy
>  
>   

-- 
Loiseleur Michel
Responsable de l'OSSA
Linagora / 27, rue de Berri / 75008 PARIS
Tel/Fax : 01 58 18 68 28 / 01 58 18 68 29
http://job.linagora.com/ | http://www.tosca-project.net
"Ce n'est pas le logiciel qui est libre, c'est vous"

Hi, 

Could you please have a look at this patch ?  We really need it, and I think 
that almost user need it too. It ensure that a disk is assigned only once to 
one vm (wich means never two times or more the same disk for a single vm). 
This became usefull when the number of message in qpidd increase.

Thanks,

Le lundi 16 novembre 2009 15:39:37 Michel Loiseleur, vous avez ?crit
:
> Hi,
> 
> Just to point you this patch, which is quite important and not ACK at
> the moment.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Loiseleur Michel a ?crit :
> > Signed-off-by: Loiseleur Michel <mloiseleur at linagora.com>
> > ---
> >  app/models/vm.rb |    2 +-
> >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/app/models/vm.rb b/app/models/vm.rb
> > index 88e0aef..0be3f89 100644
> > --- a/app/models/vm.rb
> > +++ b/app/models/vm.rb
> > @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ class Vm < ActiveRecord::Base
> >        find(:all, :conditions=>{:state=>Task::STATE_QUEUED})
> >      end
> >    end
> > -  has_and_belongs_to_many :storage_volumes
> > +  has_and_belongs_to_many :storage_volumes, :uniq => true
> >
> >    has_many :nics, :dependent => :destroy
> 
-- 
Pierre-Gilles Mialon
Responsable h?bergement :: Head of Hosting services
pmialon at linagora.com :: +33.1 58 18 65 46
Linagora :: http://www.linagora.com
27 rue de Berri :: 75008 PARIS
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<http://listman.redhat.com/archives/ovirt-devel/attachments/20091201/4810b4e9/attachment.sig>

Loiseleur Michel wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Loiseleur Michel <mloiseleur at linagora.com>
> ---
>  app/models/vm.rb |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/app/models/vm.rb b/app/models/vm.rb
> index 88e0aef..0be3f89 100644
> --- a/app/models/vm.rb
> +++ b/app/models/vm.rb
> @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ class Vm < ActiveRecord::Base
>        find(:all, :conditions=>{:state=>Task::STATE_QUEUED})
>      end
>    end
> -  has_and_belongs_to_many :storage_volumes
> +  has_and_belongs_to_many :storage_volumes, :uniq => true
>  
>    has_many :nics, :dependent => :destroy
>  
>   
ACK,

This works for removing duplicate entries when returning the list of 
storage volumes. This won't prevent duplicate records from being created 
in the first place, though.

So this can be pushed as-is, but we should probably resolve the 
duplication at the source as well -- why are we getting duplicate 
entries? In addition, we could put a unique constraint at the database 
level if necessary.

Scott