Bug 1333520
| Summary: | all containers have the same name in web UI but in docker ps shows UUID | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat CloudForms Management Engine | Reporter: | Dafna Ron <dron> | ||||||||||||
| Component: | UI - OPS | Assignee: | Yaacov Zamir <yzamir> | ||||||||||||
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Pavel Zagalsky <pzagalsk> | ||||||||||||
| Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |||||||||||||
| Priority: | high | ||||||||||||||
| Version: | 5.6.0 | CC: | cpelland, dajohnso, dron, hkataria, jhardy, mfeifer, mpovolny, obarenbo, simaishi | ||||||||||||
| Target Milestone: | GA | ||||||||||||||
| Target Release: | 5.6.0 | ||||||||||||||
| Hardware: | x86_64 | ||||||||||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||||||||||
| Whiteboard: | container | ||||||||||||||
| Fixed In Version: | 5.6.0.9 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | ||||||||||||
| Doc Text: |
Cause:
in the container page on the cloudforms web UI we display only the container names.
Consequence:
containers from different pods that have the same name will be indistinguishable.
Fix:
show the pod name next to the container name.
Result:
different containers with same name will be identified using their pods.
|
Story Points: | --- | ||||||||||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||||||||||
| Last Closed: | 2016-06-29 15:57:54 UTC | Type: | Bug | ||||||||||||
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||||||||||
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||||||||||
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||||||||||
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||||||||||
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||||||||||
| Embargoed: | |||||||||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||||||||
|
Description
Dafna Ron
2016-05-05 17:52:50 UTC
Dafna, a note for the future: for us docker is an implementation detail (it could be any other container runtime). The API of reference is kubernetes (e.g. you should have reported "oc get pods --all-namespaces -o yaml"). For this specific issue I find that UI-wise "jenkins" is more descriptive than "b36b3a1b-12d3-11e6-b635-001a4a169777". If you want to look at the UUID you can just click on the single event and you'll have all the relevant information (event type, relevant pod, etc.). If you want to augment the information you see at first glance (e.g. uuids/types, etc.) that will reduce the number of items and scalability of the timeline UI. (In reply to Federico Simoncelli from comment #1) > Dafna, a note for the future: for us docker is an implementation detail (it > could be any other container runtime). > The API of reference is kubernetes (e.g. you should have reported "oc get > pods --all-namespaces -o yaml"). Fair enough. > > For this specific issue I find that UI-wise "jenkins" is more descriptive > than "b36b3a1b-12d3-11e6-b635-001a4a169777". I agree, I do not think that you need to replace the name with the UUID what I want is that we show the name of the container and not just "jenkins" i.e: name: jenkins-1-0vmv0 If you create 10 containers, they get the general name + ID (as above) what you guys show is just the name (i.e name: jenkins-1-0vmv0 is cut into "jenkins" for all containers) > > If you want to look at the UUID you can just click on the single event and > you'll have all the relevant information (event type, relevant pod, etc.). clicking all of them when you are looking for a specific event is not user friendly > > If you want to augment the information you see at first glance (e.g. > uuids/types, etc.) that will reduce the number of items and scalability of > the timeline UI. I don't think the entire UUID should be shown, just the actual reported name (i.e name: jenkins-1-0vmv0). Also, the timeline is not scalable as is now any way... if you create 100 pods you do not see all events (In reply to Dafna Ron from comment #2) > what I want is that we show the name of the container and not just "jenkins" > i.e: name: jenkins-1-0vmv0 > > If you create 10 containers, they get the general name + ID (as above) what > you guys show is just the name (i.e name: jenkins-1-0vmv0 is cut into > "jenkins" for all containers) Those (jenkins-1-0vmv0) are Pods names, not Container names. Remember that each Pod can contain multiple Containers (identified by a name). We can go with an approach of pod-name/container-name, e.g.: jenkins-1-0vmv0/jenkins but I feel that it would be truncated by the UI anyway. > I don't think the entire UUID should be shown, just the actual reported name > (i.e name: jenkins-1-0vmv0). > > Also, the timeline is not scalable as is now any way... if you create 100 > pods you do not see all events That's handled in another RFE with Dan Clarizio IIRC. Dafna, please attach logs and screenshots. Created attachment 1157148 [details]
screen shot
here is a screen shot
as you can see the containers have the same name and the pods have pod_name<uuid>
Created attachment 1157162 [details]
logs
(In reply to Dafna Ron from comment #6) > Created attachment 1157148 [details] > screen shot > > here is a screen shot > as you can see the containers have the same name and the pods have > pod_name<uuid> OK, personally I'd go with "<pod-name>/<container-name>" although that may not be unique enough. Another option would be "<container-name>-<short-pod-uuid>" which is less descriptive but more unique. I'd leave the docker id out of the question as it's not an API that we should expose. Also remember that the names may be subject to truncation (not in scope here). > OK, personally I'd go with "<pod-name>/<container-name>" although that may not be unique enough. > Another option would be "<container-name>-<short-pod-uuid>" which is less descriptive but more unique. We already have a column for pod-name, what new information we get using one of this two options ? Created attachment 1160555 [details]
option a: <pod-name>/<container-name>
Created attachment 1160556 [details]
option b: <container-name> - <short-uuid>
Submited upstream: https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq/pull/8889 Attached images of two options: option a: "<pod-name>/<container-name>" option b: "<container-name>-<short-pod-uuid>" Dafna: please review and comment which option is best, a third option we did not think of is also welcome :-) we possibly cannot do it no because of the way the timeline is, but when we discuss changes perhaps we should suggest it.
perhaps we use the pod name but we have a + next to it to expend it and see the containers? than we can use:
<pod name> <short-pod-uuid>
-<container-name><short uui>
-<container-name><short uui>
-<container-name><short uui>
for now, my preference would actually be for <container-name>-<short-pod-uuid>
(since it's the container's tab we expect the info on the container and we can trace it to pod)
Hope it helped and not complicate it :)
> for now, my preference would actually be for <container-name>-<short-pod-uuid> Dafna it's fine :-) Updated: https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq/pull/8889 > perhaps we use the pod name but we have a + next to it to expend it and see the containers? Updated: https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq/pull/8889 It now use Pod folders, and when open show the containers. New commit detected on ManageIQ/manageiq/master: https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq/commit/51ac5e0d61fc6cbc02eb67fa203c18437c070dd7 commit 51ac5e0d61fc6cbc02eb67fa203c18437c070dd7 Author: Yaacov Zamir <yzamir> AuthorDate: Mon May 23 15:00:27 2016 +0300 Commit: Yaacov Zamir <yzamir> CommitDate: Thu May 26 20:14:01 2016 +0300 Display unique container names in containers explorer tree view. Currently all Containers from all Pods are displayed in one list, this is bad because Containers from different pods can have the same name. This commit sparate each container group by it's pod, and user can recognize each container by name+pod. Bugzilla reference: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1333520 app/presenters/tree_builder_containers.rb | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++--- spec/presenters/tree_builder_containers_spec.rb | 13 +++++++++---- 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) 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://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2016:1348 |