Bug 1330223 - [RFE] Include granular SPM status in API
Summary: [RFE] Include granular SPM status in API
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DEFERRED
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Manager
Classification: Red Hat
Component: ovirt-engine
Version: 3.6.5
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
: ---
Assignee: Tal Nisan
QA Contact: Raz Tamir
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2016-04-25 16:33 UTC by Raz Tamir
Modified: 2016-11-20 09:12 UTC (History)
10 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-11-20 09:12:41 UTC
oVirt Team: Storage
Target Upstream Version:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Raz Tamir 2016-04-25 16:33:23 UTC
Description of problem:
The SPM statuses ('Normal', 'Contending', SPM, ...) are missing from the api.
Currently the api support only 'SPM' or 'none' in case the host is not SPM


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
rhevm-3.6.5.1-0.1.el6.noarch

How reproducible:
100%

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Select new host as SPM
2. Run GET request /api/hosts
3.

Actual results:
All host's statuses will change to 'non' and when the SPM will be elected it's SPM status will change to 'SPM'


Expected results:
In the process of electing new spm there are more statuses like contending that should be presented in the API

Additional info:

Comment 1 Tal Nisan 2016-04-26 07:38:54 UTC
Raz, any reason to open it on RHEV component rather than oVirt?

Comment 2 Allon Mureinik 2016-04-26 08:44:58 UTC
Setting target release to future so this is properly discussed with PM when we start planning the next version(s).

Comment 4 Yaniv Kaul 2016-05-01 05:38:54 UTC
I'm not sure it's something users will need. I'd CLOSE-WONTFIX, unless we see a customer feature in this (or it's easy to implement).

Comment 5 Raz Tamir 2016-05-16 11:30:04 UTC
(In reply to Tal Nisan from comment #1)
> Raz, any reason to open it on RHEV component rather than oVirt?

My mistake

Comment 6 Yaniv Kaul 2016-11-20 09:12:41 UTC
(In reply to Yaniv Kaul from comment #4)
> I'm not sure it's something users will need. I'd CLOSE-WONTFIX, unless we
> see a customer feature in this (or it's easy to implement).

Closing for the time being (though to be honest, personally I'd be happy to see it too!).


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.