feat: add support for instance/profile host path devices [WD-17682]

[mas-who]

Done

• Adjusted devices table in instance/profile overview page to show host path disk devices
• Added support for create/edit host path disk devices in instance/profile configuration pages
• Adjusted the workflow for adding disk devices, now it is a multi-step flow, starting with selecting the type of disk device (volume or host path).
• Adjusted/added e2e tests to reflect the above changes.

QA

1. Run the LXD-UI:
   • On the demo server via the link posted by @webteam-app below. This is only available for PRs created by collaborators of the repo. Ask @mas-who or @edlerd for access.
   • With a local copy of this branch, build and run as described in the docs.
2. Perform the following QA steps:
   • Create a new profile, add both custom volume and host path disk devices to it.
   • Create an instance and apply the profile to that instance, make sure all disk devices are inherited.
   • Create custom volume and host path disk devices for the above instance, using different volume and mount point.
   • Start the instance, go to its terminal and make sure that path corresponding to every disk device exists. Make sure that the mounted host path has the correct content (should be the same to the path on your machine).
   • Go to the instance/profile overview page, check the device list table and make sure disk devices are displayed correctly.
   • Try modifying the volume and host path disk devices on the profile and instance.

[webteam-app]

Demo

Jenkins

demos.haus

[edlerd]

This looks good on the overview page, but on the configuration page it is still a bit broken:

I think the easiest solution is to filter the host path devices from displaying in the configuration form.

[edlerd]

Edit: the resource link for the host path on the overview page, should then direct to the yaml editor.

[mas-who]

This looks good on the overview page, but on the configuration page it is still a bit broken:

I think the easiest solution is to filter the host path devices from displaying in the configuration form.

Aaah yes didn't catch this one. I don't think filtering them is correct though, since these are still legit disk devices. Perhaps instead of "Pool/Volume", we can have "Host path" and remove Mount point. Also we can disable the edit functionality for a host path disk device for now. Wdyt?

[edlerd]

Aaah yes didn't catch this one. I don't think filtering them is correct though, since these are still legit disk devices. Perhaps instead of "Pool/Volume", we can have "Host path" and remove Mount point. Also we can disable the edit functionality for a host path disk device for now. Wdyt?

We could, then we'd half support them :) Ideally we allow adding them and editing as well, I wanted to keep the scope small, so hiding seemed like the easiest fix. Up to you how to solve it. Just having a read only would work as well, but then should add a way that guides to the YAML editor for editing it.

[mas-who]

Aaah yes didn't catch this one. I don't think filtering them is correct though, since these are still legit disk devices. Perhaps instead of "Pool/Volume", we can have "Host path" and remove Mount point. Also we can disable the edit functionality for a host path disk device for now. Wdyt?

We could, then we'd half support them :) Ideally we allow adding them and editing as well, I wanted to keep the scope small, so hiding seemed like the easiest fix. Up to you how to solve it. Just having a read only would work as well, but then should add a way that guides to the YAML editor for editing it.

I think adding/editing host path disk devices may require some design input. For example, maybe we follow a similar approach as migrate instance modal where we have multiple steps, and the first step would be to choose the type of disk device to add. Furthermore, to add/edit a host path disk device, we can let the user provide the input by using a directory picker.

In any case, for now limiting the cope to read only seems appropriate with the redirection to the yaml editor. I can create an issue to do a follow up task for the new disk device type?

[mas-who]

@edlerd please do wait a bit to review this PR, I'm not entirely happy with the implementation yet, will remove draft status once it's ready

[edlerd]

This is a really nice interaction now. Some ideas to refine the UX a bit and some other ideas about code. Most of them are very small suggestions

[edlerd]

Thanks for the quick iteration, just a handful of ideas then this should be good to merge.

[edlerd]

Thanks for the change, I find the code still got a bit too complicated around change device. Maybe it can be improved?

[edlerd]

Code lgtm! Thanks for the additional features and making this nice and round :)

Didn't QA yet, if you are confident on the QA feel free to merge right away.

[mas-who]

Code lgtm! Thanks for the additional features and making this nice and round :)

Didn't QA yet, if you are confident on the QA feel free to merge right away.

I'm confident about the functionality as I've tested it extensively. However, I think it's still a good idea to have a QA pass, perhaps just for things that are not covered in the PR description?

[edlerd]

QA looks also very good 👍