You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hi everybody,
I am currently facing the issue, that if i change the type of a credential, a credential with the same name (but with the new type) is created as duplicate. This causes errors in further processing when the name of this credential is referenced (e. g. in a job template configuration).
I think that the root cause of this issue is located in the following code snippet:
If i understand these lines correctly, the lookup, if a credential already exists, is based on three parameters (name, credential type and organization). The ansible automation platform does not return a matching object because the credential type has changed and the collection expects that credentials are only the "same", if all of these three parameters match.
That brings me to my actual question:
Is this behavior actually intended and if that is the case, why is it exactly implemented like that?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi everybody,
I am currently facing the issue, that if i change the type of a credential, a credential with the same name (but with the new type) is created as duplicate. This causes errors in further processing when the name of this credential is referenced (e. g. in a job template configuration).
I think that the root cause of this issue is located in the following code snippet:
awx/awx_collection/plugins/modules/credential.py
Lines 246 to 259 in 73b1536
If i understand these lines correctly, the lookup, if a credential already exists, is based on three parameters (name, credential type and organization). The ansible automation platform does not return a matching object because the credential type has changed and the collection expects that credentials are only the "same", if all of these three parameters match.
That brings me to my actual question:
Is this behavior actually intended and if that is the case, why is it exactly implemented like that?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: