Description of problem: Follow up the discussion in the EPIC scrub meeting: 1. The delete button for bootable volumes is not deleting the dataSource and the PVC, it just deletes labels from the volumes. It might cause confusion because if the user don't read it and deleted the volume, user cannot add a volume with the same name again, the bug #2175972 is opened for it already. Because of this issue, we may want to change the delete button to another name, like “Remove parameters” or “Remove labels”. 2. The text in the modal is "Please note that only the labels data will be deleted and that the bootable volume will remain. Are you sure you want to delete the labels for bootable volume rhel9?" "the bootable volume will remain" is not correct because the volume is not in the list after delete it. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info:
Guohua, 1. Regarding the title of the button itself in Bootable volumes list, from the discussions I was involved in, we should not change that, as we DO delete something and as we do want to have the title of the button short and consistent with the rest of the UI. And the button contains also the sub-text "Only the labels data will be deleted", which is super explaining what the button is about, no need to change that. Also I am not aware of any change in this area, from the UX. Or am I missing something? 2. I do agree but from what I know, this is still under the discussion. Or if you have more info, please, provide the correct text for that modal. Thanks!
(In reply to Hilda Stastna from comment #1) > Guohua, > > 1. Regarding the title of the button itself in Bootable volumes list, from > the discussions I was involved in, we should not change that, as we DO > delete something and as we do want to have the title of the button short and > consistent with the rest of the UI. > And the button contains also the sub-text "Only the labels data will be > deleted", which is super explaining what the button is about, no need to > change that. Also I am not aware of any change in this area, from the UX. Or > am I missing something? Firstly, I'm fine if leave it without change the button name. The reason I want to change it because it breaks user flow as bug #2175972 exists. The broken flow is: 1. It delete the item from the bootable volume list by the 'Delete' button. 2. But it cannot add a volume with the same name again. Why could not we add something we just deleted? That's why I want to change the button name. > 2. I do agree but from what I know, this is still under the discussion. Or > if you have more info, please, provide the correct text for that modal. @Foday, wdyt for the text in the modal?
Note that this is still under the discussion in the following thread: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15Cv54978AZKeukkurvkFN1YEx_kBsm_3XcmLey_cgZY/edit?disco=AAAAq58TGPw
Hi Guohua, As Hilda pointed out, this issue is still in discussion. I'll update the design as soon as we get a consensus on the wording. Thanks,
Update: 1. Regarding the name of the button, we're keeping the button as "Delete" for now. We will know more how to deal with it when we get more info about the ability to completely delete the volume, that's gonna be implemented later. 2. After discussions with Foday and others, it was decided to update the following: Modal title text: "Delete volume parameters" Modal content: "Deleting the parameters will mark this volume as non-bootable and remove it from the bootable volumes list. The volume will still be available in the cluster."
Fixing: https://github.com/kubevirt-ui/kubevirt-plugin/pull/1150
verified on 4.13.0
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 (Moderate: OpenShift Virtualization 4.13.0 Images security, 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/RHSA-2023:3205