Re: [Engine-devel] PosixFS: GUI mock-ups have been updated

----- Original Message ----- From: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com&gt; Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 4:51:31 PM On 05/13/2012 02:04 PM, Yaniv Kaul wrote: > On 05/13/2012 11:54 AM, Einav Cohen wrote: >> [top posting] >> >> GUI Mockup has been updated according to this thread: >> http://www.ovirt.org/wiki/Features/PosixFSConnection#Changes_in_GUI >> >> Further comments are welcome. > > - POSIX, not Posix. > - 'POSIX compliant FS', not 'PosixFS' > - I'd be happy if we could validate whatever we pass to the mount > command against command injection[1] . > > Y. > [1] https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Command_Injection > >> >> ---- >> Thanks, >> Einav >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> To: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> Cc: "Ayal Baron" <abaron(a)redhat.com&gt;, engine-devel(a)ovirt.org, >>> "Simon Grinberg" <sgrinber(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Saggi Mizrahi" >>> <smizrahi(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Geert Jansen" <gjansen(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Ori >>> Liel" <oliel(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Miki Kenneth" >>> <mkenneth(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Andrew Cathrow" <acathrow(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 10:05:23 AM >>> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] PosixFS: GUI mock-ups have been >>> updated >>> >>> On 05/11/2012 11:28 PM, Einav Cohen wrote: >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "Ayal Baron" <abaron(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 11:03:04 PM >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>> From: "Ayal Baron" <abaron(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 11:39:42 AM >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>>> From: "Ayal Baron" <abaron(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 10:46:44 PM >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>>>>> From: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>>>>>>>> To: "Andrew Cathrow" <acathrow(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>>>>>>>> Cc: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org, "Simon Grinberg" >>>>>>>>>>> <sgrinber(a)redhat.com&gt;, >>>>>>>>>>> "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Geert >>>>>>>>>>> Jansen" <gjansen(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Ori Liel" >>>>>>>>>>> <oliel(a)redhat.com&gt;, >>>>>>>>>>> "Yair >>>>>>>>>>> Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Ayal Baron" >>>>>>>>>>> <abaron(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Miki Kenneth" <mkenneth(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 2:05:55 PM >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] PosixFS: GUI mock-ups have >>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>> updated >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The important thing is that it's clear what it is - eg. >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> remote/target not the local mount point. That could be >>>>>>>>>>>> accomplished >>>>>>>>>>>> in the tool tip, etc. >>>>>>>>>>> So if there will be a tool-tip (or similar) in the GUI >>>>>>>>>>> explaining >>>>>>>>>>> what this field is supposed to be, are you OK with >>>>>>>>>>> keeping >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> term >>>>>>>>>>> "Path" (in both GUI and rest-api)? >>>>>>>>>> I am , does everyone else agree. >>>>>>>>> either 'path' or 'device' >>>>>>>> - "Path" it is. >>> +1 on "path" and this was my original implementation by the way. Now that I think of it - maybe we can have "Address" as optional argument AND "Path" as mandatory at REST-API? Examples - address: 10.35.16.36 path: /export/share1 Will be translated to mountSpec of "10.35.16.36:/export/share1" path: /home/someuser/domain1 Will be translated to mounSpec of "/home/some/user/domain1". Thoughts on this?

>>> >>> >>>>>>>> - Instead of a tool-tip, I suggest to use an explanation >>>>>>>> caption >>>>>>>> below the text-box (similar to what we have for NFS storage >>>>>>>> domain >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> see attached). Agreed? >>>>>>> i.e. "Path to device to mount / remote export" or something? >>>>>> Yes, that's a good answer to the question afterwards :) >>>>>> But what do you think about the general idea of using an >>>>>> explanation >>>>>> caption below the "Path" text-box (instead of a tool-tip that >>>>>> was >>>>>> suggested here earlier)? >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, do you think that the above should be the exact >>>>>> phrasing? >>>>>> The >>>>>> NFS one is: >>>>>> "Please use 'FQDN:/path' or 'IP:/path' Example >>>>>> 'server.example.com:/export/VMs'" >>>>>> so maybe a "Please use" should be incorporated in this case as >>>>>> well, >>>>>> maybe also an example, etc. >>>>>> What do you think? >>>>> I replied after viewing the other message and disliking it >>>>> (personal >>>>> opinion). I prefer a static explanation (what the field is) >>>>> rather >>>>> than an action request. >>>>> So in the NFS example I would've phrased it as "Remote path to >>>>> NFS >>>>> export, takes either the form: FQDN:/path or IP:/path, e.g. >>>>> server.example.com:/export/VMs". >>>>> But in any event it is better to have consistency (so both >>>>> messages >>>>> should probably be phrased similarly). >>>> There is no problem changing the phrasing for NFS. >>>> >>>> So for NFS, the caption will be: >>>> "Remote path to NFS export, takes either the form: FQDN:/path or >>>> IP:/path, e.g. server.example.com:/export/VMs". >>>> >>>> And for PosixFS, the caption will be: >>>> "Path to device to mount / remote export". >>>> (no 'takes the form' or example provided) >>>> >>>> Agreed? >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - What should be the exact phrasing of the explanation text? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "mount [-fnrsvw] [-t vfstype] [-o options] device dir" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> device is what is being mounted and in the case of NFS is >>>>>>>>> server:path >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is a reason why we termed it PosixFS and not SharedFS >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> users can specify local devices/FS's (and there is no >>>>>>>>> reason >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> limit it). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Note that if user defines a local FS and adds 2 hosts to >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> Posix >>>>>>>>> FS >>>>>>>>> DC then 1 host will be non-op >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Miki - this is not cluster level seeing as PosixFS is a DC >>>>>>>>> type >>>>>>>>> (afaik) so no need for tooltips about that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In the future when we get rid of the single storage type in >>>>>>>>> DC >>>>>>>>> limitation then we'll be able to define a local posixFS >>>>>>>>> domain >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> shared one. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew/Geert/Simon/Ayal/Miki/Saggi/others: Please >>>>>>>>>>>>> feel >>>>>>>>>>>>> free >>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest a new term, or vote for one of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> previously-discussed >>>>>>>>>>>>> terms ("Remote Path" / "Path" / "Mount Spec" / "File >>>>>>>>>>>>> System >>>>>>>>>>>>> URI"). >>>>>>>>>>>>> If no decision will be made here, the term will >>>>>>>>>>>>> remain >>>>>>>>>>>>> as-is, >>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Path". >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ... >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Engine-devel mailing list >> Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel >