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

[Einav Cohen]

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrew Cathrow" <acathrow at redhat.com>
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 4:57:44 PM
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen at redhat.com>
> > To: "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi at redhat.com>, "Yair Zaslavsky"
> > <yzaslavs at redhat.com>
> > Cc: "Haim Ateya" <hateya at redhat.com>, "Eldan Hildesheim"
> > <info at eldanet.com>, engine-devel at ovirt.org, "Eldan
> > Hildesheim" <ehildesh at redhat.com>, "Simon Grinberg"
> > <sgrinber at redhat.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 9:51:32 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] PosixFS: GUI mock-ups have been updated
> > 
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi at redhat.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 4:39:49 PM
> > > 
> > > I do express that empty mount options SHOULD NOT send an empty
> > > string, rather, omit the whole argument.
> > 
> > Yes, this should be handled on the backend side (Yair - please
> > note,
> > maybe it is already implemented like this - don't know): When
> > getting a null-or-empty "mount options" value from the client, the
> > backend needs to make sure to *not* set the relevant parameter in
> > the vdsm verb at all.
> > 
> > So leaving the "mount options" text-box empty in the GUI is legal,
> > only needs to be handled in a certain way in the backend.
> 
> 
> 
> In theory for a PosixFS file system a user could create multiple
> storage domains of different PosixFS types. Perhaps that's not a
> problem, but worth noting.
> 
> Is "Path" the correct term to use for the remote mount? I can imagine
> customers thinking that is local and messing with fstab.
> Not sure if there's a better term - filesystem URI ?

- In the initial mock-up, it was called "Mount Spec". Is it better?

- Note that the current PosixFS implementation in the rest-api utilizes the already-existing "<path>" property within the "<storage>" tag within the "<storage_domain>" rest-api business entity, therefore I put in the mockup the same term.
Do you think that the rest-api should have a different term as well?

> 
> I presume we are doing just not-null validation for path.
> 
> Obviously we can't validate the mount options but how good is the
> error reporting back going to be - if the mount options are wrong,
> or if something fails with the mount will we see "error 12345" in
> the UI and require the user to go digging in vdsm logs or are we
> going to pull back and display toe complete message.

Depends on backend/vdsm; Yair/Ayal?

> 
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen at redhat.com>
> > > > To: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs at redhat.com>, "Ayal Baron"
> > > > <abaron at redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi at redhat.com>, "Andrew Cathrow"
> > > > <acathrow at redhat.com>, "Miki Kenneth"
> > > > <mkenneth at redhat.com>, "Simon Grinberg" <sgrinber at redhat.com>,
> > > > "Eldan Hildesheim" <ehildesh at redhat.com>, "Eldan
> > > > Hildesheim" <info at eldanet.com>, "Alexey Chub"
> > > > <achub at redhat.com>,
> > > > engine-devel at ovirt.org, "Haim Ateya"
> > > > <hateya at redhat.com>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 9:28:31 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: PosixFS: GUI mock-ups have been updated
> > > > 
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs at redhat.com>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 4:21:42 PM
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 05/10/2012 04:16 PM, Einav Cohen wrote:
> > > > > > Please review the mock-ups on the feature page:
> > > > > > http://www.ovirt.org/wiki/Features/PosixFSConnection#Changes_in_GUI
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Comments are welcome.
> > > > > 
> > > > > From talking to Haim I understood that path should include
> > > > > ":"
> > > > 
> > > > From talking to Ayal, the path can be similar in its format to
> > > > a
> > > > path
> > > > provided when creating an NFS storage domain (e.g.
> > > > "server:/dir1/dir2"), *or* to a path provided when creating a
> > > > Local
> > > > storage domain (e.g. "/tmp/dir3"), meaning, without ":".
> > > > @Ayal - any chance for a clarification here?
> > > > 
> > > > > In addition - if we only support V1, why add the combo box?
> > > > 
> > > > We are always showing the combo-box, even if we have only one
> > > > option
> > > > in it (so the user will know what is the value that is being
> > > > sent).
> > > > However, we disable it. I updated the mock-up to clarify this.
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ----
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Einav
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Engine-devel mailing list
> > > Engine-devel at ovirt.org
> > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Engine-devel mailing list
> > Engine-devel at ovirt.org
> > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> Engine-devel mailing list
> Engine-devel at ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
> 
> 
>