Bug 1242856

Summary:	[RFE] Allow default order of allocation policy for new disks
Product:	[Retired] oVirt	Reporter:	Jiri Belka <jbelka>
Component:	ovirt-engine-config	Assignee:	Tal Nisan <tnisan>
Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE	QA Contact:	Pavel Stehlik <pstehlik>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	3.6	CC:	amureini, bugs, ecohen, gklein, lsurette, rbalakri, yeylon, ylavi
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	FutureFeature, Improvement
Target Release:	3.6.0
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:	storage
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Enhancement
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2015-07-21 22:29:58 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:

Description Jiri Belka 2015-07-14 09:30:45 UTC

Description of problem:

New disk dialog has allocation policy sorted alphabetically, thus it causes 'preallocated' to be used by default. this could be annoying as each disk would use "full" size and there are also snapshots involved...

It would be nice to redefine order of policies.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
3.6

How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1. allow to redefine order of allocation policy for new disks
2.
3.

Actual results:
not possible, it seems to be hardcoded

Expected results:
should be possible

Additional info:
getVolumeType().setSelectedItem(storageType.isBlockDomain() ? VolumeType.Preallocated : VolumeType.Sparse);

Comment 1 Allon Mureinik 2015-07-16 09:12:27 UTC

I think a whole mechanism to configure the order of options is a tad overkill, but I agree the the default should be sparse/thin. 

Yaniv - your two cents?

Comment 2 Yaniv Lavi 2015-07-21 22:29:58 UTC

(In reply to Allon Mureinik from comment #1)
> I think a whole mechanism to configure the order of options is a tad
> overkill, but I agree the the default should be sparse/thin. 
> 
> Yaniv - your two cents?

It is and is a dup of BZ 1188651

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1188651 ***