The admin GUI and admin CLI ought to agree about whether these situations are
failures or "success with warning". A few weeks ago we decided to make some
failure cases "success with warning", I guess that didn't include these cases?
The create case definitely seems like it should be a failure. The delete case
is less clear, since it's just leaving behind some "garbage".
Tom Mueller wrote on 11/ 5/10 01:58 PM:
> Please see inline.
>
> On 11/5/2010 3:43 PM, Anissa Lam wrote:
>>
>> I want to discuss the exit_code of ActionReport, WARNING vs FAILURE.
>> Currently, I see that the exit_code is always set to FAILURE, regardless
>> whether the command did what the user tries to do
> It seems that you are making some assumptions about what the user really
> wanted to do.
>>
>> eg. If i want to create an instance, with an existing node "dummyNode",
>> the instance is created, but gives this message, with exit_code "FAILURE"
>>
>> "message":"*Successfully created instance XYZ in the DAS configuration*, but
>> failed to create the instance files on node dummyNode (dummyHost).\n\nThis
>> command requires connecting to host dummyHost using SSH to complete its
>> operation, but it failed to connect:\n\n Command execution failed. There was
>> a problem while connecting to dummyHost:22\n\nPlease verify you have SSH
>> configured correctly on your system with the proper attributes set on node
>> dummyNode. You may use update-node-ssh to modify these attributes. See the
>> DAS log file for more information.\n\nTo complete this operation run the
>> following command locally on host dummyHost from the GlassFish install
>> location \/Users\/anilam\/Awork\/V3\/v3\/dist-gf:\n\n asadmin --host
>> macau2.us.oracle.com --port 4848 create-local-instance --node dummyNode XYZ",
>> "command":"Error",
>> *"exit_code":"FAILURE"*}
> Here is the instance wasn't really created. The DAS configuration was
> updated, but the file system was not created on the node. The command is
> failing because it was unable to do the entire task.
>
>>
>> Or, If I want to create an instance, with a non-existing node, the
>> instance cannot be created, (which is expected), and get the following
>> message, again with an exit_code "FAILURE"
>>
>> "message":"There is no node named NO-SUCH in this domain.",
>> "command":"Error",
>> *"exit_code":"FAILURE"*}
>>
>> The same applies to delete-instance. Even though the instance is deleted,
>> the exit_code will be set to "FAILURE" if there is any issue in the process.
> Here the instance isn't really deleted, because the files are left around on
> the remote node.
>>
>> message=*Successfully removed instance XYZ from the DAS configuration*, but
>> failed to remove the instance files from node dummyNode (dummyHost).\n\nThis
>> command requires connecting to host dummyHost using SSH to complete its
>> operation, but it failed to connect:\n\n Command execution failed. There was
>> a problem while connecting to dummyHost:22\n\nPlease verify you have SSH
>> configured correctly on your system with the proper attributes set on node
>> dummyNode. You may use update-node-ssh to modify these attributes. See the
>> DAS log file for more information.\n\nTo complete this operation run the
>> following command locally on host dummyHost from the GlassFish install
>> location \/Users\/anilam\/Awork\/V3\/v3\/dist-gf:\n\n asadmin
>> delete-local-instance --node dummyNode XYZ",
>> "command":"Error",
>> *"exit_code":"FAILURE"*
>>
>>
>> Admin Console needs to handle things differently whether the actual intended
>> action succeeded or not. We need to direct to different pages depending on
>> the status. Also, once there is failure, we abort any remaining request
>> to finish the task. With the current design, GUI cannot behave correctly.
>> Can we change it, such that WARNING is given instead of FAILURE for situation
>> where the main purpose of the command has succeeded ?
>> Is this a bug or by design ?
> It is by design that a command fails if it is not able to accomplish the
> entire task, including creating or deleting files on the remote host.
>
> What do you think about this?
>
> The ActionReport can have a structure to it, with a main return code, and then
> return code for various subtasks. We could modify select commands so that the
> result of the various subtasks is returns in ActionReport sub tasks.
>
> If we were to do this, would you be able to get this detail through REST?
> Specifically which commands would need to be changed?
>
> Tom
>
>>
>> thanks
>> Anissa.
>>