Bug 756101

Summary:	RFE: use search query to reserve machine instead of specific host
Product:	[Retired] Beaker	Reporter:	Don Zickus <dzickus>
Component:	web UI	Assignee:	beaker-dev-list
Status:	CLOSED WONTFIX	QA Contact:
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	0.7	CC:	bpeck, mastyk, mcsontos, stl, tools-bugs
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	FutureFeature
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:	UX
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Enhancement
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2020-06-02 11:37:04 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:

Description Don Zickus 2011-11-22 17:14:26 UTC

Description of problem:
Lots of times when I go to reserve a machine, I am looking for a certain class of machines (ie nehelam, usb3 ports, certain NIC).  The current web ui allows me to query machines matching that criteria which is great.

However, the problem arises after the results come back.  Instead of selecting _all_ the machines and giving me the first available, I have to triage the list *hoping* a machine is available to reserve.  Otherwise I have to blind guess which machine might open up next and randomly click on a machine to reserve.

Now what I want can already be done through xml.  I was just hoping to find a way to expose it into the reserve machine UI.  Perhaps I can setup my search query and have the result come back.  At that point I have a choice, select a specific machine or a new button that adds my 'search query' to the xml instead.

Hopefully I described that well enough.

Thanks,
Don

Comment 1 Steven Lawrance 2011-11-22 20:55:45 UTC

At some point we were discussing having the web UI search build its queries as XML using the same syntax as <hostRequires/> so there would be a 1:1 correlation 
between the sets of results there -- I'm not sure what happened to that idea but it would also make implementing this trivial.

Comment 2 Bill Peck 2011-11-22 21:10:57 UTC

(In reply to comment #1)
> At some point we were discussing having the web UI search build its queries as
> XML using the same syntax as <hostRequires/> so there would be a 1:1
> correlation 
> between the sets of results there -- I'm not sure what happened to that idea
> but it would also make implementing this trivial.

This is exactly what I would like to see happen.

Comment 3 Steven Lawrance 2011-11-23 04:35:14 UTC

Perhaps we should also add the search query builder to the reserve workflow (with an AJAX indicator to show number of matching/available systems) while we're at it.

Comment 4 Raymond Mancy 2011-11-23 04:55:18 UTC

That sounds like a good idea. If it was there I don't think we would need it at the search page?

We still though have the problem being that it's hard to model a nice way of specifying more complex relationships other than the current AND. 

I guess people can always just add their own relationships by hand, as that's not really the hard part anyway.

Comment 5 Steven Lawrance 2011-11-23 05:15:34 UTC

(In reply to comment #4)
> That sounds like a good idea. If it was there I don't think we would need it at
> the search page?

I think it should still be there for convenience.

> We still though have the problem being that it's hard to model a nice way of
> specifying more complex relationships other than the current AND. 
> 
> I guess people can always just add their own relationships by hand, as that's
> not really the hard part anyway.

How about just selecting the corresponding elements (in a textarea) and clicking an "OR these components" button which would add <or> and </or> before and after the selected text?  I picture something similar to the way phpBB and similar editors add formatting tags.  If no text is selected when clicking the "OR", the next element would be inserted inside it (i.e. cursor placed between them).

Comment 6 Raymond Mancy 2011-11-23 06:07:52 UTC

(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > That sounds like a good idea. If it was there I don't think we would need it at
> > the search page?
> 
> I think it should still be there for convenience.
> 

Perhaps, but I would think it might be worthwhile to keep  things in their proper places, including reserve related functions on the reserve related page.
This should help avoid clutter and option overload. Although perhaps users who find it convenient would say otherwise.

> > We still though have the problem being that it's hard to model a nice way of
> > specifying more complex relationships other than the current AND. 
> > 
> > I guess people can always just add their own relationships by hand, as that's
> > not really the hard part anyway.
> 
> How about just selecting the corresponding elements (in a textarea) and
> clicking an "OR these components" button which would add <or> and </or> before
> and after the selected text?  I picture something similar to the way phpBB and
> similar editors add formatting tags.  If no text is selected when clicking the
> "OR", the next element would be inserted inside it (i.e. cursor placed between
> them).

I think RT does this, and you should know what I think of RT :-p
It could though be the right solution.

What about that thing Dan started working on, where it was an interactive XML editor with pre populated options?

Comment 7 Dan Callaghan 2012-10-02 05:40:36 UTC

*** Bug 786496 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 9 Martin Styk 2020-06-02 11:37:04 UTC

Hello,

thank you for opening issue in Beaker project.
This issue was marked with component "web ui".
As we are not planning to address any further issues in current UI, due to technical stack and not being able to work with Python 3 codebase, I'm closing this issue as WONTFIX.
New UI will be reimplemented within new versions of Beaker.

If you have any questions feel free to reach out to me.

Best regards,
Martin <martin.styk>