Move security protocol

[josejulio]

As pointed by @abonas on #460 (comment) it would be better to have security protocol before port.
@Loicavenel commented that we should at least reverse port and security protocol (#460 (comment)).
@cben proposed to mimic the URI structure (protocol://hostname:port) (#460 (comment)) which is included on this PR.

Since this fields are shared among other providers I'm doing this change in a separate PR expecting other provider maintainers who use these two fields would comment / review that it indeed won't break anything for them or at least notify them of this change.

If needed I could move security protocol before port.

Additionally I'm fixing ham-lint warnings on that file.

Here are some screenshots of providers that i saw are using the Security Protocol.

Containers provider

---

---

Infrastructure provider

---

---

---

Cloud provider

---

Middleware provider

---

@cben could you please take a look?

[josejulio]

@miq-bot add_label euwe/no

[josejulio]

Know other provider maintainers who could take a look at this?

[cben]

Thanks for thorough screenshots :-) LGTM 👍.

cc @Ladas @blomquisg

[cben]

@miq-bot add-labels compute/infrastructure, middleware

[miq-bot]

This pull request is not mergeable. Please rebase and repush.

[abonas]

@miq-bot assign @israel-hdez
@israel-hdez please review
fyi @oourfali

[abonas]

@josejulio please rebase

[josejulio]

@abonas rebasing seems to be a bit tricky.
Since I moved code (which translates on deleting and adding code) I need to see what changed and apply the changes on the 'added' code.
Could i get a reviewed before rebasing? If you feel that rebasing is a need for reviewing i 'll rebase now. But I guess I'll soon need to rebase again because code is shared with other providers.

[oourfali]

@jhernand can you take a look?

[Loicavenel]

@tzumainn can you into this PR to do the same for OpenStack.. protocol first then port

[josejulio]

It turns out it wasn't that tricky thanks to this: cff36d4...6653e31#diff-f5d9ed4e8acd0a9cb7e661a8571697f1

[miq-bot]

Checked commits josejulio/manageiq-ui-classic@6ee34bd~...81b93e2 with ruby 2.2.6, rubocop 0.47.1, and haml-lint 0.20.0
0 files checked, 0 offenses detected
Everything looks good. 🍪

[cben]

@Loicavenel @tzumainn this PR already affects Openstack (see screenshots).

[israel-hdez]

LGTM

Tried it. Works fine when adding a new middleware provider. In other affected places, the form is being displayed correctly, but cannot confirm if submitting the form still works (although I don't see anything that could break the other forms)

[jhernand]

Looks good to me. In oVirt there is no way to select the security protocol, as it is mandatory to use TLS, so this shouldn't affect. @josejulio would be nice if you can add an screen shot showing the result of New infrastructure provider but selecting Red Hat Virtualization, just to make sure that it still looks correct.

[josejulio]

@jhernand Sure, I just updated the screenshots to include that one.

[jhernand]

Thanks @josejulio, that looks correct.

[abonas]

@josejulio very thorough, kudos!
auto filling the port based on the protocol is out of scope for this patch, correct?

[josejulio]

Thanks!
The auto filling was done in the previous PR. It should be already working.

[abonas]

@AparnaKarve please review/merge, it has been acked by multiple reviewers

[AparnaKarve]

LGTM.
@h-kataria Can you please merge this?

[abonas]

@miq-bot add_label enhancement