Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 1296127
string showing number of cores of VM in basictab in 3.6 is harder to read than in 3.5
Last modified: 2016-07-26 09:10:00 EDT
Description of problem:
In userportal basictab in 3.5, for number of cores of VM, you can see:
Number of cores: 1 (1 Socket(s), 1 Core(s) per Socket)
very simple, understandable and easy to read for everyone, even the most basic users
In 3.6, there's this:
Number of cores: 1 (1:1:1 Sockets:Cores/Sckt:Threads/Sckt)
which actually makes people read it 3 times skipping between 1:1:1 and its explanation for each number, and leaves some people wondering what "Sckt" means at least for a few seconds.
Text in 3.5 was much easier to read,
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Steps to Reproduce:
1. visit userportal basictab with a user that can see some VM
2. select a VM
3. check text for number of cores
if text is too long with threads per socket, it should at least have a tooltip with the original long but easy to read text
I would change that to "Number of cores: 1 (1:1:1)(?)" with a tooltip providing full sentence with explanation
Implemented as a tooltip when the mouse pointer is over the value.
This bug was accidentally moved from POST to MODIFIED via an error in automation, please see email@example.com with any questions
The tooltip is almost fine as it contains all the info, but now there's inconsistency between general subtab of VM and sub-subtabs:
Go to snapshots subtab and select a snapshot, on the right part of subtab you will see general sub-subtab, which still shows:
"1 (1:1:1 Sockets:Cores/S.:Threads/C.)"
and it doesn't have a tooltip
Target release should be placed once a package build is known to fix a issue. Since this bug is not modified, the target version has been reset. Please use target milestone to plan a fix for a oVirt release.
This bug was fixed and is slated to be in the upcoming version. As we
are focusing our testing at this phase on severe bugs, this bug was
closed without going through its verification step. If you think this
bug should be verified by QE, please set its severity to high and move
it back to ON_QA