Add topology view for a single physical infra provider #4158
Conversation
felipedf
changed the title
felipedf
force-pushed
the
single_physical_infra_topology
branch
from
298943a
to
01542e1
Compare
felipedf
changed the title
|
|
||
| :javascript | ||
| miq_bootstrap('.topology'); | ||
| = render :partial => "ems_physical_infra/show_topology" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why introducing this inconsistency? All the other topology views are using *_topology/show.html.haml file structure...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, what happened here was that ems_comon/_show.html.haml was rendering ems_container/show_topology which is specific to containers ( I guess no other provider show a topology for a single provider, at least ems_infra doesn't ). I changed that to make it more generic. Do you have any other suggestion to make it look better?
|
|
||
| :javascript | ||
| miq_bootstrap('.topology'); | ||
| = render :partial => "ems_container/show_topology" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What this PR has to do with containers?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since ems_comon show be generic, and it was rendering a file specific to containers, I moved it to a partial so ems_comon/_show.html.haml could be more generic. I kept this file because the topology view (that shows every provider) still uses this file.
felipedf
force-pushed
the
single_physical_infra_topology
branch
from
01542e1
to
5a95a0a
Compare
|
Checked commit felipedf@5a95a0a with ruby 2.3.3, rubocop 0.52.1, haml-lint 0.20.0, and yamllint 1.10.0 |
|
I don't really like that you're referring only to the physical topology in the commit(s)/description and touching also the containers. In general containers are behaving a little inconsistent compared to the other topology screens and this should be eliminated in the future. Single infra providers also have topology screens, just accessible from elsewhere: I am planning to unify the containers with the rest and put the topology icon next to the dashboard/summary as in containers, but only after we will have the new topology component from the new patternfly. |
|
I see, you are right. |
|
@felipedf yes, please do so. Try to follow the other topology screens in consistency and all should be okay 🍻 |
|
Closing this PR as it will be waiting on changes of the container topology view |
The goal here is to create a topology for a single physical infra provider