Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 1388411
[RFE] Limit Topology view tree depth when there are too many objects
Last modified: 2017-05-31 10:22:45 EDT
Description of problem: Customers with large environment (OpenShift and OpenStack), when they use Topology View, it takes a very long time to arrange and display all objects.. And it usually useless has there are too many information. [RFE]: Dynamicaly Limit the depth of topology view when there is a large number of objects.
https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq-ui-classic/pull/95
I did test it during Test-a-Thon, worked great for me
I tested it as well and it doesn't filter - it only fades out the other objects. If you have many containers (like 100's or 1.000's) the topology map is still difficult to use. I would like to be able to completely hide everything I'm not explicitly searching for.
(In reply to Christian Jung from comment #5) > I tested it as well and it doesn't filter - it only fades out the other > objects. If you have many containers (like 100's or 1.000's) the topology > map is still difficult to use. > > I would like to be able to completely hide everything I'm not explicitly > searching for. I think youre talking about using the search bar which doesnt hide objects but just leaves them there, faded out. This BZ is about setting an object limit through the settings page that hides types of objects (pods, containers, nodes etc.) when the overall amount of objects on the topology screen is above said limit. Check the screenshots in https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq-ui-classic/pull/95 does this ease the use of the topology page for you? is it enough?
Yes, I am referring to the search bar. Maybe I should open a separate BZ for that? The limit is great and indeed very useful. I was probably misunderstanding the $subject a bit.
(In reply to Christian Jung from comment #7) > Yes, I am referring to the search bar. Maybe I should open a separate BZ for > that? Well im not sure which functionality exactly youre looking for in the search bar but in any case it would need a separate BZ.
*** Bug 1403325 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
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/RHSA-2017:1367