Bug 1065753

Summary:	PRD35 - [RFE] Maintenance operations on a VM would ask for an optional reason
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Manager	Reporter:	Josep 'Pep' Turro Mauri <pep>
Component:	RFEs	Assignee:	Ravi Nori <rnori>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Jiri Belka <jbelka>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	3.2.0	CC:	aberezin, bazulay, dfediuck, emesika, gklein, iheim, juwu, lpeer, oourfali, pdwyer, pep, pstehlik, rbalakri, rnori, yeylon
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	FutureFeature
Target Release:	3.5.0
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:	infra
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Enhancement
Doc Text:	With this update, users are asked to optionally specify a reason when performing maintenance operations on a virtual machine. The feature can be set in the cluster properties to make the function optional or not.	Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2015-02-11 17:58:20 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	Virt	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:	1108866
Bug Blocks:	1142923, 1156165

Description Josep 'Pep' Turro Mauri 2014-02-16 17:14:18 UTC

RHEV admin teams would benefit from a mechanism that asks for an optional reason when performing administrative actions on VMs:  when a VM is shutdown/powered off from the mananger there's an optional "reason" field where the administrator can write a free-form explanation for the maintenance, which would be bought to attention in the logs and when/if someone attempts to power on.

There's an equivalent request to do this for hosts in Bug 678977.

Both are in addition to the change already implemented in Bug 610501 - this request is about RHEV-M explicitly asking for a reason or displaying a message in response to an action request.

Comment 1 Eli Mesika 2014-02-17 11:22:18 UTC

Please mark if this is a requirement for a Genral/DC/Cluster or VM/Host level ?
I mean where this should be set ?
Once for all application objects 
In the DC for the whole DC
etc.....

Comment 2 Arthur Berezin 2014-03-05 09:29:06 UTC

Eli, this configuration should be in cluster level as clusters are usually used to divide hosts based on functionality and importance.

Comment 3 Josep 'Pep' Turro Mauri 2014-03-05 10:33:42 UTC

My understanding is that the customer behind these requests is interested in the individual objects.

This RFE was created as a spin-off of Bug 678977 specifically for VMs (see comment 9 in that BZ).

Comment 4 Gilad Chaplik 2014-04-10 12:07:16 UTC

(In reply to Arthur Berezin from comment #2)
> Eli, this configuration should be in cluster level as clusters are usually
> used to divide hosts based on functionality and importance.

Arthur, 

I think that the cluster isn't a place to store user configuration.
I suggest to have that popup all the time... with a ignore checkbox, that be persisted at browser level.

Are you okay with that?

Thanks, 
Gilad

Comment 5 Arthur Berezin 2014-04-22 10:58:05 UTC

This RFE is asked for keeping reason of production VMs shutdown in events, and to retrieve shutdown reason later on/by another team member. It's not a user configuration.

It is common to have production and non-production separation on cluster level (Production clusters, and non-production clusters for testing,qa, etc'), thus it should be configurable to require VM shutdown reason at cluster level, and each VM should be able to override the cluster setting.

On new/edit cluster window under general tab should be a checkbox with "require VM shutdown reason", when set every VM should ask for reason upon shutdown.

Comment 6 Gilad Chaplik 2014-04-22 11:32:56 UTC

- Is there any validation for the input? if no, user can simply leave it empty, so what is the point of enforcing/showing it, IMO that's annoying.
- Means that the additional column in VM dialog for reason should be removed, VM grid can show only non-reason-ed VMs (already asked that from Ravi).

Comment 7 Arthur Berezin 2014-04-22 18:03:46 UTC

(In reply to Gilad Chaplik from comment #6)
> - Is there any validation for the input? if no, user can simply leave it
> empty, so what is the point of enforcing/showing it, IMO that's annoying.
> - Means that the additional column in VM dialog for reason should be
> removed, VM grid can show only non-reason-ed VMs (already asked that from
> Ravi).

We can check that it's not blank, Some enterprise have this as an organizational policy to keep record of production servers maintenances.

Please elaborate on second bullet, not sure what you mean by that..

Comment 8 Gilad Chaplik 2014-04-25 10:07:29 UTC

(In reply to Arthur Berezin from comment #7)
> (In reply to Gilad Chaplik from comment #6)
> > - Is there any validation for the input? if no, user can simply leave it
> > empty, so what is the point of enforcing/showing it, IMO that's annoying.
> > - Means that the additional column in VM dialog for reason should be
> > removed, VM grid can show only non-reason-ed VMs (already asked that from
> > Ravi).
> 
> We can check that it's not blank, Some enterprise have this as an
> organizational policy to keep record of production servers maintenances.

= Validation on empty reason field? IMO can be risky and bug prone.

> 
> Please elaborate on second bullet, not sure what you mean by that..

unify Reason column with Comment column in VM grid.

Comment 9 Jiri Belka 2014-07-04 14:41:49 UTC

Is OK that only last reason is saved? I suppose it is as it is in vm_dynamic, right?

Comment 10 Jiri Belka 2014-07-04 14:43:01 UTC

ok. ovirt-3.5-pre

Comment 11 Ravi Nori 2014-07-07 14:28:03 UTC

Yes, only the last reason is saved in vm_dynamic

Comment 13 errata-xmlrpc 2015-02-11 17:58:20 UTC

Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2015-0158.html