Bug 1460401

Summary:	Container Nodes should be archived instead of being deleted
Product:	Red Hat CloudForms Management Engine	Reporter:	Federico Simoncelli <fsimonce>
Component:	Providers	Assignee:	Ari Zellner <azellner>
Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE	QA Contact:	juwatts
Severity:	high	Docs Contact:
Priority:	high
Version:	5.8.0	CC:	fsimonce, gblomqui, jfrey, jhardy, lavenel, mtayer, obarenbo, simaishi
Target Milestone:	GA	Keywords:	TestOnly
Target Release:	5.10.0
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:	container
Fixed In Version:	5.10.0.0	Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:
Clones:	1536101 (view as bug list)		Environment:
Last Closed:	2018-06-21 20:23:41 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	Container Management	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:	1512843
Bug Blocks:	1536101

Description Federico Simoncelli 2017-06-09 22:54:08 UTC

Description of problem:
Currently when a node disappears from the OpenShift cluster it is deleted in CloudForms. We should instead archive it (as other entities).

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
5.8

How reproducible:
100%

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Remove one Node from the OpenShift cluster

Actual results:
The node is removed from the database.

Expected results:
The node should be archived (not visible in the UI but still in the database).

Additional info:
This would allow also old performance collection for Nodes that have been removed and also for Containers that were running on those Nodes.

Comment 1 zakiva 2017-06-12 11:36:33 UTC

https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq/pull/15351
https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq-ui-classic/pull/1524

Comment 5 Federico Simoncelli 2017-08-23 08:17:43 UTC

Moving to 5.9 because it requires an SQL migration. Anyway I think we should finish this ASAP.

Zahi what's the status here?

Comment 6 zakiva 2017-08-27 08:39:59 UTC

Federico, the schema change[1] was merged almost 2 months ago. The main PR[2] was also approved long ago and is waiting for merge (I've tried to get some mergers' attention with no success so far). 

[1] https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq-schema/pull/22
[2] https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq/pull/15351

Comment 7 Federico Simoncelli 2017-09-22 09:41:09 UTC

Zahi, it seems that the two PR mentioned in comment 6 are merged (you should have moved this to POST).

I am moving this to POST now, let me know if there is instead something else left to handle.

Comment 8 zakiva 2017-09-24 08:15:58 UTC

(In reply to Federico Simoncelli from comment #7)
> Zahi, it seems that the two PR mentioned in comment 6 are merged (you should
> have moved this to POST).
> 
> I am moving this to POST now, let me know if there is instead something else
> left to handle.

I haven't moved it to POST yet since there is still this unresolved issue (pending UI team): https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq-ui-classic/issues/1526 (Archived container records should not be displayed in the UI). 
I'm not sure QE will be able to completely verify this BZ until it will be resolved. So, if you think it should be back ON_DEV please change it (I'm keeping it on POST for now).

Comment 9 Pavel Zagalsky 2017-11-14 09:38:11 UTC

Moved to Dev due to this issue:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1512843

Comment 10 Barak 2017-11-19 16:08:01 UTC

*** Bug 1512843 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 11 Ari Zellner 2017-12-28 11:57:23 UTC

Moving to POST because I no longer see any of the issues described in https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq-ui-classic/issues/1526

Comment 14 Ari Zellner 2018-01-08 13:16:08 UTC

https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq-providers-kubernetes/pull/209