Hide Forgot
1. What is the nature and description of the request? Extend the API for datacenters, so that it is possible to add the macpool by name as well. Currently it is only possible to add a macpool by id. 2. Why does the customer need this? (List the business requirements here) <Waiting for Philipp to add this> 3. How would the customer like to achieve this? (List the functional requirements here) Besides changing the macpool like <mac_pool id="id"/> add an option to also add it by name, e.g. <mac_pool> <name>My Name</name> </mac_pool> 4. For each functional requirement listed, specify how Red Hat and the customer can test to confirm the requirement is successfully implemented. Modify the macpool of a datacenter with the following PUT directive: <data_center> <mac_pool> <name>testname</name> </mac_pool> </data_center> 5. Is there already an existing RFE upstream or in Red Hat Bugzilla? No, not that I know 6. Does the customer have any specific timeline dependencies and which release would they like to target (i.e. RHEL5, RHEL6)? RHEV 3.6 lifecycle 7. Is the sales team involved in this request and do they have any additional input? No 8. List any affected packages or components. RHEV-M 9. Would the customer be able to assist in testing this functionality if implemented? yes
Sorry, I missed to update (2): 2. Why does the customer need this? (List the business requirements here) Simplify the comparison with user-readable user-defined input (configuration management). Coherent behavior of the API. In many cases in the API it is already possible to reference by name. examples: Domain of a group, network of a host nic, datacenter of a network, datacenter of a cluster. The API should not only accept the name but also output the name directly in the XML representation of the Datacenter. <data_center> .... <mac_pool id="id"> <name>My Name</name> </mac_pool> </data_center>
Why this was moved back to assigned? Code is posted and it's waiting for code reviewer to 'unpause' himself.
We've invested much effort relative to the importance of this RFE, but development drags on. It seems to be easily worked around (by looking the uuid of a macpool). Does the customer still care for it?
What's missing? Code is committed and in review. You should care too about a clean and simple API. But the original customer does not really care for it, I implemented a workaround then.
(In reply to Philipp Gassmann from comment #5) > What's missing? Code is committed and in review. Hi Philipp, The code is not committed - just in review. > > You should care too about a clean and simple API. If you have comments about it - please raise them in Gerrit - we'd be happy to get comments. > > But the original customer does not really care for it, I implemented a > workaround then. Thanks, good to know.
We agreed to remove RFEs component from Bugzilla, if you feel the component has been renamed incorrectly please reach out.