Bug 1403325

Summary:	[RFE] Topology View update with large number of Objects
Product:	Red Hat CloudForms Management Engine	Reporter:	Loic Avenel <lavenel>
Component:	UI - OPS	Assignee:	John Hardy <jhardy>
Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE	QA Contact:	Dave Johnson <dajohnso>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	unspecified	CC:	azellner, fsimonce, hkataria, jhardy, kmorey, lavenel, mpovolny, nstephan, obarenbo
Target Milestone:	GA	Keywords:	FutureFeature
Target Release:	cfme-future
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2017-05-08 19:20:42 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:

Description Loic Avenel 2016-12-09 16:26:10 UTC

Description of problem: with large OpenShift installation, Topology view is unusable there are two many objects on the screen.. 
There are 2 things we should look at:

 - Limit the number of objects in Topology view when more than X objets... Limit the tree depth.. and offer drill drown
 - A some object level: Nodes, Projects, Containers etc... enable topology view to see all childs and parents of this object.. 


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


How reproducible: ALWAYS

Comment 2 Federico Simoncelli 2016-12-12 15:57:56 UTC

Adding Ari to the CC who is also aware of this requirement and he was evaluating the CM side.

Comment 3 Ari Zellner 2017-01-19 13:09:31 UTC

Upstram PR: https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq-ui-classic/pull/95

Comment 4 Ari Zellner 2017-01-29 13:27:35 UTC

Here is an upstream issue tracking this change for all topology views: https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq-ui-classic/issues/252

Comment 6 Federico Simoncelli 2017-04-10 14:38:06 UTC

Loic, is this a duplicate of bug 1388411 ?

Comment 7 Loic Avenel 2017-05-01 11:20:11 UTC

(In reply to Federico Simoncelli from comment #6)
> Loic, is this a duplicate of bug 1388411 ?

YES

Comment 8 Federico Simoncelli 2017-05-08 19:20:42 UTC


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1388411 ***