Added hostname fallback fields for openstack amqp events. #5270
Conversation
The change looks safe enough, but without testing it I have about 0 confidence this won't break anywhere :). (Will test once no longer wip.) It also copies twice a piece of form that's already there, so, you're right that this is not exactly technical debt free. That said, given this needs to be backported, sounds like this is the only way to achieve that 👍 And I absolutely agree ems forms should be absolutely top priority for data driven forms, even if we have to provide all the data ourselves instead of the provider repos. |
Could not agree more |
Hyperkid123
force-pushed
the
openstack-provider
branch
2 times, most recently
from
dfe8e2d to
92da180
Compare
Hyperkid123
changed the title
Hyperkid123
force-pushed
the
openstack-provider
branch
from
92da180 to
dc073ca
Compare
|
@miq-bot add-reviewer @h-kataria |
|
@alexander-demichev can you test changes in this PR? |
| "ng-readonly" => ng_readonly_hostname, | ||
| "maxlength" => ViewHelper::MAX_NAME_LEN.to_s, | ||
| "ng-trim" => false, | ||
| "placeholder" => "Hostname or IPV4 or IPV6 address", |
| "ng-readonly" => ng_readonly_hostname, | ||
| "maxlength" => ViewHelper::MAX_NAME_LEN.to_s, | ||
| "ng-trim" => false, | ||
| "placeholder" => "Hostname or IPV4 or IPV6 address", |
Hyperkid123
force-pushed
the
openstack-provider
branch
from
dc073ca to
58e43c5
Compare
|
Checked commit Hyperkid123@58e43c5 with ruby 2.3.3, rubocop 0.52.1, haml-lint 0.20.0, and yamllint 1.10.0 |
|
@alexander-demichev Can you please verify changes in this PR. |
|
@aufi can someone on your team help us test/verify this fix. Thanks. |
|
I wasn't able test this end-to-end due to infrastructure complexity. But, new fields introduced in this PR look to be passed to backend, so looks good to me, 👍 from OpenStack side. |
|
@aufi Thx for testing. |
Solves: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595558
Adds two new fallback text fields for hostname.
@h-kataria @alexander-demichev do you know what labels should be assigned to these fields? Field names in model have been assigned based on this: https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq-providers-openstack/pull/394/files#diff-6f9b687ce51fd31aa102fa9305ef2501R148
@himdel @martinpovolny I would like to go and start converting this form into react data driven forms. Even though this was a small and relatively "safe" change i am afraid it introduces another technical debt and further diminishes maintainability. Your thoughts?