Add support for displaying storage device details

[skovic]

This PR adds support for displaying details about storage devices associated with physical servers. A link displaying the number of storage devices associated with a server will be displayed on the Physical Server Summary page. Clicking on this link will take the user to a page that displays a list of a server's storage devices. Clicking on one of these devices takes the user to the Storage Device Summary page for that device.

This PR depends on ManageIQ/manageiq#17332

[skovic]

@miq-bot assign_label wip

[miq-bot]

@skovic unrecognized command 'assign_label', ignoring...

Accepted commands are: add_label, add_reviewer, assign, close_issue, move_issue, remove_label, rm_label, set_milestone

[skovic]

@miq-bot add_label wip

[miq-bot]

Checked commits skovic/manageiq-ui-classic@c6b4f29~...b0ead7a 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. 🍪

[skovic]

@miq-bot remove_label wip

[skovic]

@miq-bot add_label compute/physical infrastructure

[skovic]

@agrare This PR is also ready for review. Thanks

[agrare]

@miq-bot assign @himdel

[himdel]

LGTM :)

(but not sure this should even be the same class - ManageIQ/manageiq#17332 (comment) )

[skovic]

@himdel Looks like the PR this one depends on got merged. Any other changes needed in this PR? Thanks

[himdel]

@skovic The code looks good now, I think there should be nothing blocking this :).

Unfortunately that's not quite true: I have to be able to test this and I don't have the data.

Do you have any publicly-facing provider that can be used for testing please?
Or a script that adds a sample physical provider + server with all the relevant data to the db?

(Usually we either have a testing provider, or a process of setting one up is documented in https://github.com/ManageIQ/guides/tree/master/providers , or there's a script like openshift set-miq-providers that just adds the right DB entries. But no such luck for Lenovo.)

Thanks

[skovic]

@himdel Would it suffice for me to walk you through the UI in a Blue Jeans or Skype session?

[himdel]

@skovic Not really, sorry.

But if you can convince another member of your team to test this in the UI (and write it here), I'm OK with merging :)

(The point is: every PR should be tested in the UI by somebody other than the author. We don't do this as a strict requirement, as most of the time, it's easier to just test & merge than to ask & wait, but in cases like this... ((It's much easier to prevent those "but it works on my machine" kind of bugs if there's at least two people with non-identical databases who managed to get it working.:)))

[skovic]

@rodneyhbrown7 Can you test these changes out when you get a chance? Thanks

[rodneyhbrown7]

LGTM - I was able to verify the function in this PR on my development appliance.

[himdel]

Thanks both of you! :) Merged 👍

(Just note that something like this would be needed for every PR that's specific to physical infra, so it might be a good idea to get some testing data either way :).)