never mind that again, answerring to fast as I probably do one out of two or three times :( Looking further...
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 9:19 PM, Daan Hoogland <[email protected]> wrote: > Mike, I am looking at the commit and it makes perfect sense as the the > prior situation was creating a prepared statement based on dynamicly > added strings. The only queer thing is that the int i = 1 is replaced > with i = 1, reusing the loop counter instead of hiding it. Maybe this > is the problem > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 8:55 PM, Mike Tutkowski > <[email protected]> wrote: >> I see the problem. >> >> The way a SQL statement was constructed was changed by commit >> b84093f691ae0b09d2c525d50f2e2d200c709b2c: >> >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blobdiff;f=engine/schema/src/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/datastore/db/PrimaryDataStoreDaoImpl.java;h=d3c29f70d6ab56379c2436b5cafc933049200f31;hp=faf5291554a68506b14438a7e1cda61cd4c3cc0c;hb=b84093f691ae0b09d2c525d50f2e2d200c709b2c;hpb=1407033cc2e0742653d82bb0181c041b31253693 >> >> and no longer makes any sense >> >> SELECT storage_pool.* from storage_pool LEFT JOIN storage_pool_details ON >> storage_pool.id = storage_pool_details.pool_id WHERE storage_pool.removed is >> null and storage_pool.status = 'Up' and storage_pool.data_center_id = 1 and >> storage_pool.scope = 'ZONE' and (((storage_pool_details.name=1) AND >> (storage_pool_details.value=** NOT SPECIFIED **))) GROUP BY >> storage_pool_details.pool_id HAVING COUNT(storage_pool_details.name) >= ** >> NOT SPECIFIED ** >> >> I think I'm just going to revert this commit. It was related to a change put >> in at the request of FindBugs. >> >> I've CCed the relevant participants in the commit in case they wish to >> re-evaluate the FindBugs request and resubmit a fix. >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Mike Tutkowski >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> FYI that I get the same error message when trying to attach a data disk >>> that is based on zone-wide primary storage. >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Mike Tutkowski >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm actually having trouble creating a VM whose root disk runs on >>>> zone-wide primary storage. >>>> >>>> This is definitely a blocker for 4.6. I'm just beginning to look into >>>> this, but this is the error message I receive: >>>> >>>> findZoneWideStoragePoolsByTags:Exception:No value specified for parameter >>>> 4 >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Pierre-Luc Dion <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I've create this jira filter[1] for the Release Manager, based on it, >>>>> there >>>>> would be only 4 maybe just 3 blockers on 4.6. Based on this, should we >>>>> consider placing a target date for RC1 somewhere like end of August ? >>>>> >>>>> What's missing and to do in 4.6 as far as I know: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Basic documentation of new features, >>>>> 2. Decide if we let it in master and freeze merge during RC ? >>>>> 3. Build all job as 4.6 in jenkins ? >>>>> 4. Organize a QA-party, like old time lan-party >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12332940 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Mike Tutkowski >>>> Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc. >>>> e: [email protected] >>>> o: 303.746.7302 >>>> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud™ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mike Tutkowski >>> Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc. >>> e: [email protected] >>> o: 303.746.7302 >>> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud™ >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Mike Tutkowski >> Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc. >> e: [email protected] >> o: 303.746.7302 >> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud™ > > > > -- > Daan -- Daan
