Bug 1362401

Summary:	[OVS] [UI][RFE] - Add column to the 'Clusters' main tab that will indicate the cluster's switch type
Product:	[oVirt] ovirt-engine	Reporter:	Michael Burman <mburman>
Component:	BLL.Network	Assignee:	Martin Mucha <mmucha>
Status:	CLOSED WONTFIX	QA Contact:	Michael Burman <mburman>
Severity:	low	Docs Contact:
Priority:	low
Version:	4.0.0	CC:	bugs, danken, mmucha, myakove, ylavi
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	FutureFeature
Target Release:	---	Flags:	sbonazzo: ovirt-4.1- mburman: testing_plan_complete-
Hardware:	x86_64
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2016-12-13 12:51:26 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	Network	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	1195208

Description Michael Burman 2016-08-02 06:54:50 UTC

Description of problem:
[OVS] [UI] - Add column to the 'Clusters' main tab that will indicate the cluster's switch type.

Currently we have no indication and info about the cluster's switch type and if we adding the option to change this type, we should also display it in a column of it's own in the 'Cluster' main tab. 

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
4.0.2.3-0.1.el7ev

Comment 1 Dan Kenigsberg 2016-08-02 08:34:43 UTC

Why is it important to have the information in the table?
It was meant to be tucked away as an internal cluster detail.

Comment 2 Red Hat Bugzilla Rules Engine 2016-08-02 08:34:46 UTC

Bug tickets must have version flags set prior to targeting them to a release. Please ask maintainer to set the correct version flags and only then set the target milestone.

Comment 3 Yaniv Lavi 2016-11-30 10:02:38 UTC

Can you please revert this change?

Comment 4 Michael Burman 2016-11-30 10:05:31 UTC

Why we reverting this?

Comment 5 Martin Mucha 2016-11-30 10:05:44 UTC

sure. May I ask for reason for such revert? (to know if there isn't simple fix existing) Or we just don't want to show this value in main table (it sounds useful to me though).

Comment 6 Yaniv Lavi 2016-11-30 13:45:55 UTC

(In reply to Martin Mucha from comment #5)
> sure. May I ask for reason for such revert? (to know if there isn't simple
> fix existing) Or we just don't want to show this value in main table (it
> sounds useful to me though).

We are suspending the OVS effort and this is very visible change.

Comment 7 Yaniv Lavi 2016-12-13 12:51:26 UTC

I see it's reverted. Closing as won't fix.

Comment 8 Martin Mucha 2016-12-13 12:57:05 UTC

(In reply to Yaniv Dary from comment #7)
> I see it's reverted. Closing as won't fix.

reverted upon request, as ovs is allegedly not sufficiently ready yet.