| Summary: | Various network object CRUD forms require better filtering | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat CloudForms Management Engine | Reporter: | Tzu-Mainn Chen <tzumainn> | |
| Component: | UI - OPS | Assignee: | Gilles Dubreuil <gdubreui> | |
| Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Ola Pavlenko <opavlenk> | |
| Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | ||
| Priority: | high | |||
| Version: | 5.7.0 | CC: | cpelland, dajohnso, gdubreui, hkataria, jhajyahy, jhardy, mpovolny, obarenbo, opavlenk, simaishi, tzumainn | |
| Target Milestone: | GA | Keywords: | TestOnly, ZStream | |
| Target Release: | 5.9.0 | |||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | |||
| OS: | Unspecified | |||
| Whiteboard: | openstack:sdn | |||
| Fixed In Version: | 5.9.0.1 | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | ||
| Clone Of: | ||||
| : | 1458377 (view as bug list) | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2018-03-06 14:35:33 UTC | Type: | Bug | |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | ||
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | ||
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | ||
| Cloudforms Team: | Openstack | Target Upstream Version: | ||
| Bug Depends On: | ||||
| Bug Blocks: | 1458377 | |||
|
Description
Tzu-Mainn Chen
2016-11-11 15:06:12 UTC
Could you please more specific about the network items that need better filtering? Ah, sure. It's probably best illustrated by something that already happens on Routers: the Network selection doesn't appear until you select the Network Provider, and those Networks are filtered to only include those that are in that Provider. So on Routers, we'd want the Cloud Tenants to be filtered depending on the Provider as well; and similar behavior for the Network and Subnet forms. Let me know if that doesn't make sense! Yes that makes perfect sense! Thanks. The network item: - Cloud Tenant to show all tenants available in the corresponding network provider The subnet item: - The network filter needs to be applied - The cloud tenant must be the same as the tenant of the network the subnet is attached to. I don't a use case for allowing a different tenant. Cloud subnet: Filtering networks by ems: https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq/pull/13213 New commit detected on ManageIQ/manageiq-ui-classic/master: https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq-ui-classic/commit/74f4c40c9e359ac35c11e6b6572361449ae29416 commit 74f4c40c9e359ac35c11e6b6572361449ae29416 Author: Gilles Dubreuil <gilles> AuthorDate: Wed Jan 4 17:01:25 2017 +1100 Commit: Gilles Dubreuil <gilles> CommitDate: Tue Jan 10 18:32:44 2017 +1100 Cloud Subnet: Filtering networks by ems_id Dynamically filters the network list available for creating a subnet upon the selection of the network providers. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394289 .../cloud_subnet/cloud_subnet_form_controller.js | 11 ++++++ app/controllers/cloud_subnet_controller.rb | 33 ++++++++++++++---- app/views/cloud_subnet/new.html.haml | 39 +++++++++++++--------- config/routes.rb | 2 ++ 4 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) Hi Gilles! I tested the network filtering, and it works great. Just to confirm, I believe you mentioned that no filtering is needed on the subnet form, because it's already limited to the network's cloud tenant. Is the same true for the router form? Mainn, Since a subnet is attached to a network it effectively lives under the same ownership realm. I don't see a use case to allow different tenants/projects between the two. And the other hand, a router can/must be filtered by cloud tenant. Neutron RBAC would have to be used to properly tackle the issue of allowing different tenant/project to use network objects (neutron items). That would apply to all items including subnet. But that's the next feature :) Okay, that's fine by me! So would you say this BZ is complete as far as it can practically go at the moment? I believe so. https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq/pull/14731 https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq-ui-classic/pull/1343 are both also required Mainn, Thanks to your help, it seems now we done here, would you agree? Yep, I agree! This is in POST. Verified on RHOS 11, 5.9.0.21 |