Bug 1357616

Summary:	[RFE] Add diskattachments collection under Disk object
Product:	[oVirt] ovirt-engine	Reporter:	Raz Tamir <ratamir>
Component:	BLL.Storage	Assignee:	Tal Nisan <tnisan>
Status:	CLOSED WONTFIX	QA Contact:	Raz Tamir <ratamir>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	4.0.1.1	CC:	bugs, dfediuck, juan.hernandez, tnisan, ylavi
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	FutureFeature
Target Release:	---	Flags:	amureini: 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:	2018-05-27 13:44:54 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:

Description Raz Tamir 2016-07-18 16:09:10 UTC

Description of problem:
Following the RFE #1346918, the logic connection between disks and vm was "pulled" out from vm's disks collection to diskattachemnts, to make the connection between disks and vms to be more logical and reasonable. This connection is should be bi-directional.
If a VM object "sees" a list of attachments to different disks, a Disk object should have the "ability" to "see" a list of attachments, that are applied on it, to different vms (in case the disk is shared, snapshot disk that was attached to backup vm, etc.)


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


How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info:

Comment 1 Allon Mureinik 2016-07-18 16:19:55 UTC

Tal - can you guestimate how much work there is here?

Comment 2 Tal Nisan 2016-07-19 07:45:35 UTC

Not too much probably, this bug was opened after a discussion with Raz last night,  I think this is quite logical to have that.
Juan, what do you think?

Comment 3 Juan Hernández 2016-07-19 08:03:30 UTC

I agree it is logical to have that, but before adding it to the API I'd like to hear what is the use case. We didn't need this before introducing the concept of "disk attachment", so why do we need it now? How are users going to take advantage of this new feature?

Comment 4 Raz Tamir 2016-07-20 09:45:50 UTC

A good example I can think of is that when registering a disk, from an imported storage domain, that was attached to a vm before the storage domain was detached, I would expect that this disk will be registered as an attached disk to the vm (in case it is still exists in the environment).
This operation can be achieved with this RFE

Comment 5 Doron Fediuck 2018-05-27 13:44:54 UTC

Closing old RFEs.
If relevant, please re-open and explain why.
As always- patches are welcomed!