Added separate features for Requests subtabs

[h-kataria]

Separated features for each "Requests" sub tab under Automation/Automate/Requests & Compute/Infrastructure/Requests to provide users with capability to allow access to each type individually. Currently there was only features for Service/Requests user was forced to have access to Service/Requests features to be able to see Automation or Host Provisioning requests.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1508490

[bdunne]

It feels strange to duplicate this. Is there a reason that a user would be allowed to see requests in one place (Automation Requests), but not another (Service Requests)?

I ask because I wouldn't expect the API to differentiate between them. I would expect GET /api/requests to show everything (automation, service, host_provision, etc.).

[h-kataria]

UI PR: ManageIQ/manageiq-ui-classic#4062
@bdunne User can only have access to see specific type of Requests depending upon where they were redirected from to main Requests tab under Services in UI. User can access Requests screen from different places in UI and in absence of access to main Requests tab features under Services and not having an access to any of the other subtabs under a maintab users were not able to see any of their Requests, we had to add separate features for each individual "Requests" subtab. This PR makes it simple for admins to give access to Users to each individual Requests type tabs and features related to Requests. See screenshots in UI PR.

[martinpovolny]

It feels strange to duplicate this. Is there a reason that a user would be allowed to see requests in one place

Those are different requests. From the admin perspective those are different things.

I ask because I wouldn't expect the API to differentiate between them. I would expect GET /api/requests to show everything (automation, service, host_provision, etc.).

Well then the API should be changed as well. We need to model the API and the UI according to the requirements not vice versa ;-)

[martinpovolny]

@bdunne : Unless you have further notes. I'd merge this one. The UI part may need some cleanups, but the features will be needed.

[bdunne]

@martinpovolny All of you are more experienced with this than I am, so merge if you feel it is correct.

[miq-bot]

Checked commit h-kataria@c3de340 with ruby 2.3.3, rubocop 0.52.1, haml-lint 0.20.0, and yamllint 1.10.0
0 files checked, 0 offenses detected
Everything looks fine. 🏆