Bug 1993285

Summary:	[RFE] confirmation prompt when suspending a virtual machine - VM portal
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Manager	Reporter:	Arik <ahadas>
Component:	ovirt-web-ui	Assignee:	Sharon Gratch <sgratch>
Status:	CLOSED WONTFIX	QA Contact:	Guilherme Santos <gdeolive>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	3.6.0	CC:	ahadas, cww, dmoessne, ljelinko, lpeer, lsurette, mavital, michal.skrivanek, mkalinin, mtessun, pelauter, sgratch, srevivo
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	FutureFeature, Triaged
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Enhancement
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:	655153	Environment:
Last Closed:	2021-08-31 14:07:01 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	UX	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:	655153, 1121616, 1171924
Bug Blocks:

Comment 1 Arik 2021-08-12 16:55:57 UTC

See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=655153#c26

Comment 3 Sharon Gratch 2021-08-31 14:05:27 UTC

(In reply to Arik from comment #1)
> See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=655153#c26

Currently a confirmation dialog for suspending a VM is displayed by default for web-ui: attachment 1819419 [details]

Regarding the option to disable/enable it per user, there are no current plans to support confirmation messages enabling/disabling ability for web-ui.
Therefore, I'm attaching this to the web-ui user settings epic and closing this bug as WONTFIX.

if you think it's still important to handle then let's discuss it.

Comment 4 Arik 2021-09-01 08:05:54 UTC

(In reply to Sharon Gratch from comment #3)
> if you think it's still important to handle then let's discuss it.

I personally don't really mind - that's just how we interpreted the requirement we got on bz 655153.
If you didn't get any report on that, and assuming that's not because users knew about bz 655153 already, I wouldn't prioritize it either

Comment 5 Arik 2021-09-01 08:10:54 UTC

(In reply to Arik from comment #4)
> (In reply to Sharon Gratch from comment #3)
> > if you think it's still important to handle then let's discuss it.
> 
> I personally don't really mind - that's just how we interpreted the
> requirement we got on bz 655153.

Or more accurately, that's just how to envisioned the solution for the requirement we got on bz 655153 (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=655153#c1)

> If you didn't get any report on that, and assuming that's not because users
> knew about bz 655153 already, I wouldn't prioritize it either