Dynamic product features according to tenants #18102
Conversation
lpichler
force-pushed
the
dynamic_product_features
branch
4 times, most recently
from
dbf07ff to
ddc18a9
Compare
app/models/miq_product_feature.rb
Outdated
| @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ class MiqProductFeature < ApplicationRecord | |||
| has_and_belongs_to_many :miq_user_roles, :join_table => :miq_roles_features | |||
| has_many :miq_product_features_shares | |||
| has_many :shares, :through => :miq_product_features_shares | |||
| belongs_to :tenant, :dependent => :destroy | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will this delete the tenant if a product feature is deleted?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes it needs to be removed, thanks 👍
lpichler
force-pushed
the
dynamic_product_features
branch
2 times, most recently
from
705b1a6 to
b6565ed
Compare
|
@gtanzillo |
app/models/tenant.rb
Outdated
| after_create :create_tenant_group | ||
| before_destroy :ensure_can_be_destroyed | ||
| after_create :create_tenant_group, :create_miq_product_features_for_tenant_nodes | ||
| before_destroy :ensure_can_be_destroyed, :destroy_tenant_feature_for_tenant_node |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think that you need to call destroy_tenant_feature_for_tenant_node. The has_many :miq_product_features, :dependent => :destroy in this class should take care of deleting the product features associated with the tenant being deleted.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
you are right, thanks 👍
app/models/tenant.rb
Outdated
| result | ||
| end | ||
|
|
||
| def create_miq_product_feature(miq_product_feature) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should be named build_... instead of create_... since it doesn't actually create the miq_product_feature
db/fixtures/miq_product_features.yml
Outdated
| :children: | ||
| - :name: Add | ||
| :description: Add Dialog in the Dialog Editor | ||
| :feature_type: admin | ||
| :hidden: true | ||
| :feature_type: tenant_node |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps it would be better to just add a new column for this instead of overloading feature_type. Maybe a boolean column called per_tenant? I'll leave it up to you for the implementation.
lpichler
force-pushed
the
dynamic_product_features
branch
from
b6565ed to
ea8bbd5
Compare
lpichler
force-pushed
the
dynamic_product_features
branch
3 times, most recently
from
21b7aac to
36b8c28
Compare
lpichler
force-pushed
the
dynamic_product_features
branch
from
36b8c28 to
cd56be0
Compare
lpichler
changed the title
|
Checked commits lpichler/manageiq@3bed523~...cd56be0 with ruby 2.3.3, rubocop 0.52.1, haml-lint 0.20.0, and yamllint 1.10.0 |
|
@miq-bot add_label hammer/yes |
Dynamic product features according to tenants
|
@lpichler @gtanzillo This PR is marked as |
|
@simaishi I am sorry it was added too early, so for now hammer/no and we are waiting for answer |
|
@miq-bot remove_label hammer/yes will need to wait for decision ^ |
|
@miq-bot add_label blocker |
… role - This was a bug in the logic in ManageIQ#18102 - This fixes test failures in the API repo
… role - This was a bug in the logic in ManageIQ#18102 - This fixes test failures in the API repo
|
@miq-bot add_label hammer/yes |
Dynamic product features according to tenants (cherry picked from commit e391dec) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1468795
|
Hammer backport details: |
depends on:
add tenant_nodes to Add, Edit, Copy and Delete permission for service dialogs:
part of #18100
Links
@miq-bot assign @gtanzillo