Description of problem: For 'New' host function, change 'address' to 'Hostname/IP' Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): RHEV 3.5 How reproducible: always Additional info: The customer feels that it would be a bit more intuitive if the 'Address' field was renamed to 'Hostname/IP', as this a description, that they are more familiar with, and consistent with other products they use.
The DNS name may be different than the hostname. Right terminology would be FQDN/IP. I think address is clear. Moran - thoughts?
(In reply to Oved Ourfali from comment #1) > The DNS name may be different than the hostname. > Right terminology would be FQDN/IP. > I think address is clear. > > Moran - thoughts? Oved, can we add this description in a tool tip, something that would make it clearer and use IP address, FQDN terminology?
(In reply to Moran Goldboim from comment #2) > (In reply to Oved Ourfali from comment #1) > > The DNS name may be different than the hostname. > > Right terminology would be FQDN/IP. > > I think address is clear. > > > > Moran - thoughts? > > Oved, can we add this description in a tool tip, something that would make > it clearer and use IP address, FQDN terminology? Tool tip on what? on the text itself? the text box?
(In reply to Oved Ourfali from comment #3) > (In reply to Moran Goldboim from comment #2) > > (In reply to Oved Ourfali from comment #1) > > > The DNS name may be different than the hostname. > > > Right terminology would be FQDN/IP. > > > I think address is clear. > > > > > > Moran - thoughts? > > > > Oved, can we add this description in a tool tip, something that would make > > it clearer and use IP address, FQDN terminology? > > Tool tip on what? on the text itself? the text box? usually done on a "?" icon next to textbox, but let's sync toward RHEV 4 depending on UX guidelines for this version.
(In reply to Moran Goldboim from comment #4) > (In reply to Oved Ourfali from comment #3) > > (In reply to Moran Goldboim from comment #2) > > > (In reply to Oved Ourfali from comment #1) > > > > The DNS name may be different than the hostname. > > > > Right terminology would be FQDN/IP. > > > > I think address is clear. > > > > > > > > Moran - thoughts? > > > > > > Oved, can we add this description in a tool tip, something that would make > > > it clearer and use IP address, FQDN terminology? > > > > Tool tip on what? on the text itself? the text box? > > usually done on a "?" icon next to textbox, but let's sync toward RHEV 4 > depending on UX guidelines for this version. Now's the time to sync - please change the head if it's going to be a tooltip.
(In reply to Yaniv Kaul from comment #5) > (In reply to Moran Goldboim from comment #4) > > (In reply to Oved Ourfali from comment #3) > > > (In reply to Moran Goldboim from comment #2) > > > > (In reply to Oved Ourfali from comment #1) > > > > > The DNS name may be different than the hostname. > > > > > Right terminology would be FQDN/IP. > > > > > I think address is clear. > > > > > > > > > > Moran - thoughts? > > > > > > > > Oved, can we add this description in a tool tip, something that would make > > > > it clearer and use IP address, FQDN terminology? > > > > > > Tool tip on what? on the text itself? the text box? > > > > usually done on a "?" icon next to textbox, but let's sync toward RHEV 4 > > depending on UX guidelines for this version. > > Now's the time to sync - please change the head if it's going to be a > tooltip. since we aren't touching vm area in 4.0 but probably just in 4.1. i'm postponing that one to 4.1 timeframe.
OK, it missed 4.1 as well. Moran?
So how about to use 'Hostname' instead of 'Address' and add question mark icon after 'Hostname' text with tool tip "Please enter fully qualified domain name or IP address of the host"? This is the same approach which we are for example using inside 'Console' or 'Kernel' tabs within 'New Host' dialog
(In reply to Martin Perina from comment #8) > So how about to use 'Hostname' instead of 'Address' and add question mark > icon after 'Hostname' text with tool tip "Please enter fully qualified > domain name or IP address of the host"? > This is the same approach which we are for example using inside 'Console' or > 'Kernel' tabs within 'New Host' dialog Sounds good to me.
We don't support IP address for hosts, since some features will not work and this can be fragile. Please consider only mentioning host name.
(In reply to Yaniv Lavi from comment #11) > We don't support IP address for hosts, since some features will not work and > this can be fragile. Please consider only mentioning host name. That's a question for Moran.
(In reply to Oved Ourfali from comment #12) > (In reply to Yaniv Lavi from comment #11) > > We don't support IP address for hosts, since some features will not work and > > this can be fragile. Please consider only mentioning host name. > > That's a question for Moran. Yaniv, can you please specify the features that wouldn't work with IP address only. if we get to the conclusion it's harms basic functionality or the effect is to wide, i agree we should consider to remove IP address support. but that would probably effect upgrade flows and current deployments. in general i think we would still want to support both options for the simplicity of the deployment process and existing users deployments. nevertheless, i think it's a good info to add to the help icon suggested at comment 8. we can probably have this addition- "warning- not configuring the host with a resolvable FQDN can prevent usage of several functions in the product. for more details please refer to documentation"
(In reply to Moran Goldboim from comment #13) > (In reply to Oved Ourfali from comment #12) > > (In reply to Yaniv Lavi from comment #11) > > > We don't support IP address for hosts, since some features will not work and > > > this can be fragile. Please consider only mentioning host name. > > > > That's a question for Moran. > > Yaniv, can you please specify the features that wouldn't work with IP > address only. if we get to the conclusion it's harms basic functionality or > the effect is to wide, i agree we should consider to remove IP address > support. but that would probably effect upgrade flows and current > deployments. > I don't have a list, but the OVN/Neutron integration will probably not work.
Verified on version 4.2.0-0.0.master.20170816180818.gitfa401fb.el7.centos
Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2018:1488
Sync with Jira
BZ<2>Jira Resync