| FazBrowse GitHub Viewer | Trending | | Home |
| Tools: [Download Repo ZIP] [Original HTTPS Page] |
Sorry, something went wrong.
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #11824 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 17.42% 17.56% +0.13%
- Complexity 15336 15498 +162
============================================
Files 5892 5899 +7
Lines 526521 527793 +1272
Branches 64293 64479 +186
============================================
+ Hits 91767 92703 +936
- Misses 424401 424666 +265
- Partials 10353 10424 +71
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
clgtm
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
clgtm. didn't test.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
@DaanHoogland a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ el10 ✖️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 15432 |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
@DaanHoogland a [SL] Trillian-Jenkins test job (ol8 mgmt + kvm-ol8) has been kicked to run smoke tests |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
[SF] Trillian test result (tid-14701)
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
| Back | FazBrowse Home | New Git URL |
Description
During the user disablement process, created events contain the user internal ID instead of the user UUID. Therefore, this PR fixes this behaviour by changing the internal ID in the event descriptions to the user's UUID.
Types of changes
Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity
Bug Severity
Screenshots (if appropriate):
How Has This Been Tested?
I built the packages with the changes and applied them to my local environment. In Apache CloudStack, I created a new user user in the admin account, then disabled it. In the events, I validated that the user's UUID were shown instead of the user's internal ID.
How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?