RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.

+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #2141999 +++

Description of problem:

Right now adding a port a bridge means modify the "port" field of the bridge so the previous port has to be also included or they will be removed.

We can add a "controller" field to interfaces to they just  get attached to the bridge, port.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible: Always


Steps to Reproduce:
1. Add a interface as a new bridge port modifying the bridge "port" field with just the interface

Actual results:
The other ports get removed


Expected results:
It should merge it with the ports or we should have a controller field at interfaces.


Additional info:

I think this is against the declarative and idempotent design. The Nmstate output state won't be the same than the desired state. IMO, this fits better in NMPolicy as they do not follow these rules. What do you think?

I don't get it why it cannot be declarative and idempotent, could you elaborate?


```yaml
---
interfaces:
- name: eth1
  state: up
  controller: br0
```

Verified with:
nmstate-2.2.5-1.el9.x86_64
nispor-1.2.9-1.el9.x86_64
NetworkManager-1.41.90-1.el9.x86_64
openvswitch2.15-2.15.0-79.el9fdp.x86_64
DISTRO=RHEL-9.2.0-20230127.12

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 (nmstate bug fix and enhancement update), 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/RHBA-2023:2190