Clean out cache of MiqProductFeature at CUD tenant actions in UI process

[lpichler]

CUD - create, update, delete

Issue
MiqProductFeature is using cache for some queries. MiqProductFeatures are tied to Tenants. Where we are adding/updating/delete tenant we need update this cache to reflect changes in UI.
But it doesn't work when cache is cleaned out at model's callbacks because UI is different process.

Reproducer
https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/14937244/50166079-8c3c3380-02e6-11e9-8a53-a39dddcb9cab.gif

Thanks to the @gtanzillo's idea and @skateman's research we confirmed that if you clean the cache from the API(on instantiated classes), it doesn't reflects the changes in the UI probably because of different processes. We found with @himdel obviously better solution how to tie cleaning of cache to CUD of tenants. (then it was presented here #5101 and #5100)

Fix tested on appliance.

@miq-bot assign @himdel

@miq-bot add_label bug, blocker

Links

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1468795
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1655012

[lpichler]

as well at at many PRs this is example of great teamwork! Thank you! 👏 👏

[skateman]

@lpichler it's definitely not due to different processes as I was able to reproduce the issue using rails s. Even though the solution might work, I think it is a very ugly hack to create a route just because there's something we don't completely understand. Of course if there's no other solution, we have to work with what we have.

@miq-bot add_reviewer @martinpovolny

[miq-bot]

Checked commit lpichler@c5057e5 with ruby 2.3.3, rubocop 0.52.1, haml-lint 0.20.0, and yamllint 1.10.0
3 files checked, 0 offenses detected
Everything looks fine. 🏆

[lpichler]

it's definitely not due to different processes as I was able to reproduce the issue using rails s.

I was not able to reproduce it with rails s.

I think it is a very ugly hack to create a route just because ...

We know about it. It is not about how fix is ugly but what is the best solution at this moment, whether it is possible to cover it by specs and if it includes features of ideal solution.

[martinpovolny]

Delegating this one. I do not feel strong enough to review the Angular changes.

[skateman]

@martinpovolny my problem here is not with angular, but with the principle of adding a route for having something that is clearly just a workaround, i.e. creating techdebt.

[martinpovolny]

@skateman : I agree. However we need a fix for a blocker BZ.

I would consider making this a fix for hammer and carrying on with investigating the issue.

However I do not understand the problem well enough to have a strong opinion here.

[skateman]

@lpichler can you please at least mark the route/implementation with a FIXME and explain in a comment that this should be revisited?

[ZitaNemeckova]

@martinpovolny Angular LGTM 👍

[lpichler]

@miq-bot add_label hammer/yes

[simaishi]

Hammer backport details:

$ git log -1
commit a6ad477c443b23a485fcf755aadbb56d142c171d
Author: Martin Hradil <[email protected]>
Date:   Fri Dec 21 12:52:40 2018 +0100

    Merge pull request #5108 from lpichler/clear_cashe_of_MiqProductFeature_in_UI_process_at_CUD_tenant_actions
    
    Clean out cache of MiqProductFeature at CUD tenant actions in UI process
    
    (cherry picked from commit a385b30de33e1d723227ee65e1cab2ad30a0b7a4)
    
    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1468795
    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1655012