Bug 1993285 - [RFE] confirmation prompt when suspending a virtual machine - VM portal
Summary: [RFE] confirmation prompt when suspending a virtual machine - VM portal
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Manager
Classification: Red Hat
Component: ovirt-web-ui
Version: 3.6.0
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
: ---
Assignee: Sharon Gratch
QA Contact: Guilherme Santos
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 655153 1121616 1171924
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2021-08-12 16:54 UTC by Arik
Modified: 2021-09-01 08:10 UTC (History)
13 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Clone Of: 655153
Environment:
Last Closed: 2021-08-31 14:07:01 UTC
oVirt Team: UX
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Issue Tracker RHV-43025 0 None None None 2021-08-12 16:57:20 UTC

Comment 1 Arik 2021-08-12 16:55:57 UTC 
See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=655153#c26
Comment 3 Sharon Gratch 2021-08-31 14:05:27 UTC 
(In reply to Arik from comment #1)
> See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=655153#c26

Currently a confirmation dialog for suspending a VM is displayed by default for web-ui: attachment 1819419 [details]

Regarding the option to disable/enable it per user, there are no current plans to support confirmation messages enabling/disabling ability for web-ui.
Therefore, I'm attaching this to the web-ui user settings epic and closing this bug as WONTFIX.

if you think it's still important to handle then let's discuss it.
Comment 4 Arik 2021-09-01 08:05:54 UTC 
(In reply to Sharon Gratch from comment #3)
> if you think it's still important to handle then let's discuss it.

I personally don't really mind - that's just how we interpreted the requirement we got on bz 655153.
If you didn't get any report on that, and assuming that's not because users knew about bz 655153 already, I wouldn't prioritize it either
Comment 5 Arik 2021-09-01 08:10:54 UTC 
(In reply to Arik from comment #4)
> (In reply to Sharon Gratch from comment #3)
> > if you think it's still important to handle then let's discuss it.
> 
> I personally don't really mind - that's just how we interpreted the
> requirement we got on bz 655153.

Or more accurately, that's just how to envisioned the solution for the requirement we got on bz 655153 (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=655153#c1)

> If you didn't get any report on that, and assuming that's not because users
> knew about bz 655153 already, I wouldn't prioritize it either
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.