Re: [Engine-devel] "wipe after delete" Matching defaults from GUI to Backend

From: "Ravi Nori" <rnori(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Daniel Erez" <derez(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 3:21:05 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] "wipe after delete" Matching defaults from GUI to Backend On 10/10/2012 01:17 AM, Daniel Erez wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Ravi Nori" <rnori(a)redhat.com&gt; >> To: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org >> Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 6:40:56 PM >> Subject: [Engine-devel] "wipe after delete" Matching defaults from >> GUI to Backend >> >> I am working on the bug where the defaults values in the GUI for >> disk >> actions don't correspond to the default values in the API/Backend. >> For >> example the "wipe after delete" flag defaults to true in the GUI >> but >> false in the backend code. Default values are not sent from the >> frontend >> to the backend. Please refer to the bugzilla link >> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845466 >> >> After discussing with Michael as to how to approach fixing this, >> we >> think the best way to do it would be to fix it in the Backend >> class >> businessentities.Disk by replacing primitives with reference types >> and >> forcing business logic in the class to set the default values to >> match >> the default values in the client. >> >> I would appreciate some feedback on this and also on what the >> default >> values are for Disk operations on the GUI. > GUI behavior is as follows: > For File storage domains - WipeAfterDelete check-box is > unchangeable and unchecked (false). > For Block storage domains - WipeAfterDelete check-box is changeable > and > the default value is according to 'SANWipeAfterDelete' > configuration value. > > I think you should simply utilize the same configuration value in > REST or backend when creating a new disk. > >> Thanks >> >> Ravi >> _______________________________________________ >> Engine-devel mailing list >> Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel >> Thanks for the reply. Here is my current implementation I modified businessentities.BaseDisk class to change wipeAfterDelete to wrapper class (reference class) for boolean private Boolean wipeAfterDelete; I also added default values for File and block storages private boolean wipeAfterDeleteFileStorageDomain = false; private boolean wipeAfterDeleteBlockStorageDomain = Config.<Boolean>GetValue(ConfigValues.SANWipeAfterDelete); The storage type determines which of the two default values is returned by BaseDisk when wipeAfterDelete is not set (is null) StorageType storageType = StorageType.UNKNOWN; So isWipeAfterDeleteMethodLooks like this public boolean isWipeAfterDelete() { if (wipeAfterDelete == null) { return getDefaultIsWipeAfterDelete(); } return wipeAfterDelete; } private boolean getDefaultIsWipeAfterDelete() { if(storageType.equals(StorageType.UNKNOWN)) { return false; } switch (storageType) { case ISCSI: case FCP: return wipeAfterDeleteBlockStorageDomain; default: return wipeAfterDeleteFileStorageDomain; } } There is a new method isWipeAfterDeleteSet that will be used by commands to set the storage type to get the default wipeAfterDeleteFlag if wipeAfterDelete was not set. public boolean isWipeAfterDeleteSet() { return wipeAfterDelete != null; } Now in bll.AddDiskCommand I modified executeVmCommand to add the following if(!getParameters().getDiskInfo().isWipeAfterDeleteSet()) { StorageType storageType = getStorageDomain().getstorage_type(); getParameters().getDiskInfo().setStorageType(storageType); } This approach minimizes the impact of changes. So all commands interested in wipeAfterDelete flag based on storage type if wipeAfterDelete has not been set need to set the storageType before calling isWipeAfterDelete. Please let me know if this is the solution conflicts with something you have been working on. All the existing code will work as it has been working, if wipeAfterDelete has not been set and storageType has not been set the method isWipeAfterDelete return false (like it was earlier)