Repository navigation
isrecursive not honoured for listAccounts, maybe others as well #4868
Description
ISSUE TYPE
- Bug Report
CLOUDSTACK VERSION
4.14 + (maybe even lower versions)
SUMMARY
isrecursive is not honoured when passed along with listall=true for listAccounts as a root admin
It is also not honoured when allow.user.view.all.domain.accounts is true
EXPECTED RESULTS
(qa) 🐱 > list accounts filter=name,domain domainid=e4874e10-5fdf-11ea-9a56-1e006800018c listall=true isrecursive=false
{
"account": [
{
"domain": "ROOT",
"name": "admin"
},
{
"domain": "ROOT",
"name": "baremetal-system-account"
},
................
ACTUAL RESULTS
(qa) 🐱 > list accounts filter=name,domain domainid=e4874e10-5fdf-11ea-9a56-1e006800018c listall=true isrecursive=false
{
"account": [
{
"domain": "ROOT",
"name": "admin"
},
{
"domain": "ROOT",
"name": "baremetal-system-account"
},
{
"domain": "small", <- from a sub domain
"name": "rick"
},
Activity
DaanHoogland commentedon Mar 25, 2021
so basically teh defined functionalities of
listallandisrecursiveoverlap andlistallprefails. iniutitively I'd sayisrecursiveshould prefail, so FWIW I agree.ravening commentedon Apr 1, 2021
@davidjumani @DaanHoogland this issue exists for several api's if you call the api from the child domain
I have seen the same issue for listing service offering and disk offering as well. I have created a pr for it
Create the following domain relationship
ROOT -> test1 -> test11
Now login as test1 and create a service offering for test11 domain.
If you login as test11, you wont see it
DaanHoogland commentedon Apr 2, 2021
@ravening that sounds more like a problem with access than recursion, wouldn't you say so?
ravening commentedon Apr 2, 2021
Not with recursion but how the code works
DaanHoogland commentedon Apr 2, 2021
yes, well, domains have a concept of recursion but accounts do not. In the zone/pod/cluster/host there is another form of what could be called recursion. What you name above seems like a bug to me, but in general it is hard to define recursion consistently in cloudstack behaviour when it comes to these constructs.
Do you agree with how @davidjumani proposes to implement this?
And do you have other examples where it should behave the same?
I think what you mention about creating a service offering merits an issue ticket of its own.
davidjumani commentedon Apr 6, 2021
I think that this is a deeper issue that could be across several elements. Need to look into whether this should be fixed. I personally think so and can raise a PR for the same but would like to get a wider feedback
nvazquez commentedon Aug 2, 2021
@davidjumani reading the description of the parameters:
Seems like these definitions might need a change, have you thought about a new behaviour?
davidjumani commentedon Aug 2, 2021
@nvazquez Not just the definitions but the implementations as well
nvazquez commentedon Aug 2, 2021
@davidjumani sure, my question was if you could explain what's your idea on the new implementation. Maybe easier to explain the new definitions of both parameter
davidjumani commentedon Aug 3, 2021
@nvazquez My idea is :
13 remaining items
yadvr commentedon Mar 24, 2022
It appears David's PR was reverted. @nvazquez pl review with 4.17 team if this is worth fixing for 4.17, or move to next milestone(s).
nvazquez commentedon Mar 25, 2022
Thanks @rohityadavcloud we have forgotten to reopen this issue after reverting the PR, moving it to the next milestone
davidjumani commentedon Aug 18, 2022
This is a niche case and not frequently encountered. Can reopen when required