Bug 1159640

Summary: [RFE] - remove Interface from add floating disk dialog
Product: [oVirt] ovirt-engine Reporter: Ori Gofen <ogofen>
Component: RFEsAssignee: Tal Nisan <tnisan>
Status: CLOSED UPSTREAM QA Contact: Raz Tamir <ratamir>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 3.5.0CC: acanan, amureini, bugs, gklein, lpeer, lsurette, rbalakri, Rhev-m-bugs, srevivo, tnisan, ykaul, ylavi
Target Milestone: ovirt-4.0.6Keywords: FutureFeature
Target Release: ---Flags: ylavi: ovirt-future?
rule-engine: planning_ack?
rule-engine: devel_ack?
rule-engine: testing_ack?
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2017-01-31 13:14:54 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: Storage RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On: 1142762    
Bug Blocks:    
Attachments:
Description Flags
image none

Description Ori Gofen 2014-11-02 13:52:04 UTC
Created attachment 952907 [details]
image

Description of problem:

Creating sPAPR-VSCSi image shouldn't be allowed on non-PowerKVM cluster,
The created image takes space, while can't be plugged to VM's (see image)

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
vt8

How reproducible:
100%

Actual results:

Creating sPAPR-VSCSi image is allowed Via disks Tab

Expected results:
No sPAPR-VSCSi entry should be on non-PowerKVM cluster

Additional info:

Comment 1 Daniel Erez 2014-11-04 11:55:51 UTC
Disk interface should be an attribute of VM-Disk attachment. Hence, should be removed from 'add floating disk' dialog (as it's not relevant as a property of a disk). This change would be covered as part of bug 1142762.

Comment 2 Allon Mureinik 2015-04-12 13:43:33 UTC
This is part of bug 1142762 - must have for 3.6.0.

Comment 4 Yaniv Lavi 2016-12-05 14:12:53 UTC
Was this done in the refactoring process?

Comment 5 Allon Mureinik 2016-12-06 12:29:57 UTC
(In reply to Yaniv Dary from comment #4)
> Was this done in the refactoring process?
As far as I can see (both by opening the GUI and by examining the code), the answer is yes.

Tal - please keep me honest here.
If I'm right, please close this as CURRENT_RELEASE.
If not, please advise what's still missing.