Bug 651479 - [RFE] Support time limits for system loans
Summary: [RFE] Support time limits for system loans
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Beaker
Classification: Retired
Component: general
Version: 26
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
medium
high
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: beaker-dev-list
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard: GroupModel
: 1733676 (view as bug list)
Depends On: 995012
Blocks: 651477
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2010-11-09 16:50 UTC by Bill Peck
Modified: 2024-06-30 23:46 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2021-05-10 19:23:17 UTC
Embargoed:
gaoxyt: needinfo-


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Bugzilla 639938 0 high CLOSED [RFE] The reservesys step should be separate from the rest of the tests 2021-02-22 00:41:40 UTC
Red Hat Bugzilla 651477 0 medium CLOSED When taking a loaned system give option to return loan automatically. 2024-01-23 09:50:40 UTC
Red Hat Bugzilla 1324974 0 unspecified CLOSED [RFE] Allow for loans to have a start and end date in the future 2021-02-22 00:41:40 UTC

Internal Links: 639938 651477 1324974

Description Bill Peck 2010-11-09 16:50:04 UTC
Description of problem:
Ask for how long when loaning a system, default to X. 
nag-email use that, also show current outstanding loans in report.  
Allow owners extend the loan by X number of days at a time.

X should be configurable.

Comment 1 Matt Brodeur 2011-07-11 14:23:52 UTC
How does this fit with the loan-workflow idea (bug 629902)?  I'd like to be able to specify an optional time limit on loans, and have the loan automatically reclaimed at the end.  The nag mail alone is clearly not sufficient in some cases.

Comment 2 Bill Peck 2011-07-11 18:04:02 UTC
bug 629902 is asking for a queue.

Comment 3 Nick Coghlan 2013-09-17 01:41:24 UTC
Related to this - there's no timeout when reserving systems in Manual mode, either.

Bug 639938 describes a proposal to separate the reservesys step from the rest of the test, allowing it to be test harness independent, while still enforcing a timeout on the reservation.

Such a test harness independent mechanism should also be usable to place a time limit on manual reservations, when combined with an "also return loan" option as described in bug 651477.

Comment 4 Nick Coghlan 2013-10-09 05:30:14 UTC
Added a dependency on fixing the job activity tracking, since implementing this will result in the scheduler automatically cancelling jobs when a time limited loan expires.

Comment 6 Nick Coghlan 2013-10-16 08:06:07 UTC
On reflection, using the same mechanism for loan and manual reservation time limits doesn't actually make any sense.

Comment 7 Dan Callaghan 2016-06-01 13:21:31 UTC
This would probably be implemented at the same time as (or perhaps just blocks) bug 1324974.

Comment 8 jiazhan 2016-06-13 06:27:23 UTC
Hi beaker dev team:
This is Kevin Zhang from CEE, I think Bill's RFE is quite necessary and that's an issue that we got feedback from CEE users
How can I keep people from using loaned servers without time limit?
there are quite some servers were manually loaned to users when admins are requested by users . But we see most of time, user forgot to return boxes to beaker or  update us after they finish with loaned boxes. Since boxes loaned to users has no time limits, others can't use it freely with reserve workflow . so new users have to ask us or  current users if loaned boxes can be released.  it's not efficient for both users and admins.

We expected beaker can set loan time limit for 'loaned' and 'Automated' status servers, for example, 60 days, if it's been loaned for 60 days, email will be alarmed to users that box will be forcefully unloaned and released in 5 days and returned to beaker. If user need to continue on box for more time, they need mail to admins so we(admins) can set to box to 'manual'. In this way, 'manual' box can't be provisioned freely by new users even if box was returned to beaker.

Comment 9 Roman Joost 2016-10-25 04:41:01 UTC
I'm moving this item back to Triaged, since we can't work on it before we haven't written up a design proposal, discussed it and hashed out a solution.

Comment 10 Tomas Klohna 🔧 2019-11-07 14:29:02 UTC
*** Bug 1733676 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 11 Carol Bouchard 2021-05-10 19:23:17 UTC
Closing this as will not do, this feature is not impacting the RHEL 9 support that we are focusing on in the final LTS 28 version. This is a feature being considered in next product.

If you think that this does have an impact on RHEL 9 support. Please give the business justification and reopen. 

 
If you have any question please contact Theo tapazogl.

Comment 12 LinkAiris 2024-06-27 21:20:05 UTC Comment hidden (spam)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.