Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.

Bug 1330223

Summary: [RFE] Include granular SPM status in API
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Manager Reporter: Raz Tamir <ratamir>
Component: ovirt-engineAssignee: Tal Nisan <tnisan>
Status: CLOSED DEFERRED QA Contact: Raz Tamir <ratamir>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 3.6.5CC: acanan, amureini, gklein, lsurette, ratamir, rbalakri, Rhev-m-bugs, srevivo, tnisan, ykaul
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: FutureFeature, Improvement
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-11-20 09:12:41 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: Storage RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

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!).