Bug 2138273

Summary: [UI] Storage system hyperlink under status card on ODF Overview page is missing
Product: [Red Hat Storage] Red Hat OpenShift Data Foundation Reporter: Aman Agrawal <amagrawa>
Component: ceph-monitoringAssignee: arun kumar mohan <amohan>
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE QA Contact: Parag Kamble <pakamble>
Severity: urgent Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 4.10CC: amohan, badhikar, dosypenk, ebenahar, jefbrown, muagarwa, nthomas, ocs-bugs, odf-bz-bot, sanjuak, skatiyar
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: Regression, Reopened
Target Release: ODF 4.12.0Flags: dosypenk: needinfo? (sanjuak)
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: 4.12.0-114 Doc Type: No Doc Update
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2023-02-08 14:06:28 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:
Bug Depends On: 2142763, 2142787    
Bug Blocks: 2022356    

Comment 5 Mudit Agarwal 2022-10-31 14:54:17 UTC
Arun, is this expected or this is a bug?
If it is expected then what is the impact (on QE, Doc, customer etc.)

Comment 9 arun kumar mohan 2022-11-11 05:00:06 UTC
(In reply to Mudit Agarwal from comment #5)
> Arun, is this expected or this is a bug?
> If it is expected then what is the impact (on QE, Doc, customer etc.)

Yes Mudit. This is a bug, we should be showing all the Storage Systems available (Ceph or IBM or MCG etc).

@Sanjal, you have mentioned that `UI cannot use a different query`. Is it possible for us to use multiple queries (in the UI) and get all the results (instead of a single query)?

If that is not possible then we have to device a single query or change the existing `odf_system_health_status` query to support all the Storage Systems.

Comment 12 Sanjal Katiyar 2022-11-11 06:41:09 UTC
(In reply to arun kumar mohan from comment #9)
> (In reply to Mudit Agarwal from comment #5)
> > Arun, is this expected or this is a bug?
> > If it is expected then what is the impact (on QE, Doc, customer etc.)
> 
> Yes Mudit. This is a bug, we should be showing all the Storage Systems
> available (Ceph or IBM or MCG etc).
> 
> @Sanjal, you have mentioned that `UI cannot use a different query`. Is it
> possible for us to use multiple queries (in the UI) and get all the results
> (instead of a single query)?
> 
> If that is not possible then we have to device a single query or change the
> existing `odf_system_health_status` query to support all the Storage Systems.

Hi Arun,
UI uses generic metric/query which will work for all type of StorageSystems (internal/external/mcg-standalone/ibm-flashsystem/<any_new_maybe_in_future>).

Ideally we shouldn't be making any UI change as we are using same metric/query since beginning unless it is not a monitoring/backend bug and are deliberate changes (if these are intentional changes from the backend it sounds strange that these changes were made without prior info that too after feature freeze:/ )

In case it is something that can not be fixed from backend then we need to make sure (we can discuss offline in a call as well):
1) Whatever metric we use is generic as well (for example: we can't use ceph_health_status as it will not work for mcg-standalone storagesystem).
2) We might have to backport the changes to earlier releases as well, depending upon upto which versions are affect.

But that is just my take, tagging @badhikar as well to keep him in loop and in case I missed anything.

Comment 13 Bipul Adhikari 2022-11-14 10:54:38 UTC
We cannot change queries in the dashboard to accommodate any storage system. Storage Systems must report metrics as per the agreed upon convention.

Comment 14 Bipul Adhikari 2022-11-14 10:54:55 UTC
We cannot change queries in the dashboard to accommodate any storage system. Storage Systems must report metrics as per the agreed upon convention.

Comment 16 arun kumar mohan 2022-11-17 11:14:18 UTC
Closing this issue as 'WORKS-FOR-ME'.

Comment 20 Daniel Osypenko 2022-11-23 13:44:25 UTC
from conversation with @skatiyar and @muagarwa appears that the bug fix for 4.10 depends on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142787 which on 23/11/22 is being under development. Even though bug fix for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142763 is on verification we still need to wait pr merged for 2142787, in order to verify and close this issue