Bug 1341819
| Summary: | Incorrect labels used in Cluster Configuration page | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Red Hat Storage] Red Hat Storage Console | Reporter: | Matt Carrano <mcarrano> | ||||||
| Component: | UI | Assignee: | gowtham <gshanmug> | ||||||
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Martin Bukatovic <mbukatov> | ||||||
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||||
| Priority: | high | ||||||||
| Version: | 2 | CC: | deb, julim, ltrilety, mbukatov, mkudlej, nthomas, sankarshan, shtripat, vsarmila | ||||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||||
| Target Release: | 2 | ||||||||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||||||||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||||
| Fixed In Version: | rhscon-core-0.0.34-1.el7scon.x86_64 rhscon-ceph-0.0.33-1.el7scon.x86_64 rhscon-ui-0.0.47-1.el7scon.noarch | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | ||||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||||
| Last Closed: | 2016-08-23 19:53:43 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: | |||||||||
| Bug Depends On: | |||||||||
| Bug Blocks: | 1344195 | ||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||
|
Description
Matt Carrano
2016-06-01 19:47:44 UTC
Created attachment 1165742 [details]
What needs to be fixed
The notification and utilization tables (where the problems are identified) are generated from API response data. As long as we fix them on the backend, they should render fine on the frontend. Releasing this to be reassigned to backend team. @Deb, backend api returns field names and values. The labels for the fields are hardcoded in UI code. We need to correct as per suggestion. Checking with rhscon-ui-0.0.48-1.el7scon.noarch
The cluster Configuration tab now reports the following:
Notifications:
* Cluster Availability (no change needed)
* Host Availability (no change needed)
* Quorum Loss (no change needed)
* Monitor Availability (no change needed)
* OSD Availability (fixed)
Thresholds (here the list of items changed compared to state when
the BZ was reported):
* OSD Utilization (not fixed, see below)
* Storage Utilization not fixed, see below)
* Cluster (fixed)
* Storage Profile (fixed)
* Block Device Utilization (not fixed, see below)
Looking at the description from Matt, I see that he proposed 2 types of changes
for the Thresholds (was Utilization) table:
* fixing typos (such as Osd -> OSD, Cpu -> CPU, Df -> OSD, ...)
* dropping Utilization from the 1st column of the table
(eg. Cluster Utilization -> Cluster)
And while I see that the typos were fixed, I still see word "Utilization"
in the 1st column of few lines in the table. Based on Matt's description,
I would expect that it should not be there.
>> ASSIGNED
Martin, As per the typos mentioned in the attached screen shot everything is changed. Wherever he asked to remove "Utilization", its removed. Also Df is not OSD actually. In reality it is Mount Point utilization so named like this. As such I don't find anything wrong done as part of fix. Not sure if this is really a FailedQA. When something suggested in UX guidelines its just a guideline and its dev's responsibility to make sure that Df is not replaced with OSD rather it is Mount Point utilization. These comments are solely mine... and request Nishanth/Matt to comment. (In reply to Shubhendu Tripathi from comment #9) > As such I don't find anything wrong done as part of fix. Not sure if this is > really a FailedQA. When I look at "what needs to be fixed" image attached to this BZ, I see that for every line in the table which contains word "Utilization" in the 1st column, the design team suggested to remove it. This makes me think that the design team have removing all occurrences of word "Utilization" in mind. So when I see that there are lines which contains word "Utilization" in the current implementation, I consider this to be an issue which should be addressed (by removing the word "Utilization" from affected lines). Moreover I expect that all lines in the table are about some kind of utilization, so I don't understand why some name there includes "Utilization" in it's name while some others don't. This is the only problem I describe in comment 7. Created attachment 1181925 [details]
config screen
The patches https://review.gerrithub.io/#/c/283170/ and https://review.gerrithub.io/#/c/283165/ remove the "Utilization" keyword from the UI. What about: Order not logical for Utilization It seems to me, that nothing was done in the regard, the order is not lexicographical nor logical e.g. for logical one I expect to have swap next to memory. (In reply to Lubos Trilety from comment #16) > What about: > Order not logical for Utilization > > It seems to me, that nothing was done in that regard, the order is not > lexicographical nor logical e.g. for logical one I expect to have swap next > to memory. Tested on: rhscon-ui-0.0.50-1.el7scon.noarch After discussion the order will not be changed. 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/RHEA-2016:1754 |