[CLOUD-1384] Add openshift.io/display-name and description annota… #244
Conversation
|
I think "openshift.io/description" is redundant. Openshift already takes the "description" field into consideration (tested in web console for 3.3 and 3.4). Also, IMO, the display-name could be more elaborated WRT abbreviations. For example: |
|
Similar to @jwendell's comments. We should be using the product names (e.g. Red Hat JBoss A-MQ 6.2) and the description field is just "description". The templates in the origin repository have some additional annotations (not yet released), which include template.openshift.io/long-description. Also, CLOUD-1384 only refers to the display-name field. All of the annotation changes required are described in CLOUD-1381 and openshift.io/description (or template.openshift.io/long-description) is not on that list. I appreciate your enthusiasm though. |
|
Thanks for the feedback, I have updated the files based on the comments. Let me know how it looks and if anything else needs to be changed |
|
Wait hold one second on that I forgot one thing....adding now |
|
Alright, changes made, now it is ready for your eyes again |
amq/amq62-basic.json
Outdated
| @@ -6,7 +6,8 @@ | |||
| "description": "Application template for JBoss A-MQ brokers. These can be deployed as standalone or in a mesh. This template doesn't feature SSL support.", | |||
| "iconClass": "icon-jboss", | |||
| "tags": "messaging,amq,jboss,xpaas", | |||
| "version": "1.3.1" | |||
| "version": "1.3.1", | |||
| "openshift.io/display-name": "Red Hat JBoss A-MQ 62 (Basic)" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Versions should have the dot. 62 → 6.2
This applies to all other changes.
secrets/amq-app-secret.json
Outdated
| @@ -3,7 +3,8 @@ | |||
| "apiVersion": "v1", | |||
| "metadata": { | |||
| "annotations": { | |||
| "description": "Examples that can be installed into your project to allow you to test the A-MQ template. You should replace the contents with data that is more appropriate for your deployment." | |||
| "description": "Examples that can be installed into your project to allow you to test the A-MQ template. You should replace the contents with data that is more appropriate for your deployment.", | |||
| "openshift.io/display-name": "Red Hat JBoss A-MQ (App Secret)" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Secrets don't need this. Moreover, these secrets are only for convenience purposes. They aren't used by templates. This applies to all secrets below.
sso/sso70-https.json
Outdated
| "iconClass": "icon-jboss", | ||
| "tags": "sso,keycloak,java,jboss,xpaas", | ||
| "version": "1.3.2", | ||
| "openshift.io/display-name": "Red Hat JBoss SSO70 (Using HTTPS)" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
SSO70 → SSO 7.0 (Space and dot, applies to others below)
|
Dang, you have sharp eyes, I can't believe I missed those! |
…s to all templates
kyguy
changed the title
|
LGTM, except maybe, for this minor phrasing: (here the database is mounted upon a persistent volume, so, we can say the database is persistent; or that we are using a persistent database) You native English spoken guys may have a better feeling than I though. |
|
I agree that this should be changed, what if we did something like: Would that be ok too? This way we would also clarify that products without a database have a persistent volume: That is, if users are not sure what "(Persistent)" means. If they already know, this option could make things more verbose and confusing. Maybe I am over thinking this. Let me know what you think. I can change it easily either way. |
|
It's difficult to say what's perfect. I think we should maybe use the following strategy: Something like that. We should get clarification on the exact name to use for EAP and should follow the scheme used by the other templates (e.g. the MySQL template). By separating out "basic" instead of https, we highlight that basic is special, since all the other templates support https. |
|
Tweaked the names a bit, rebased and pushed. |
…tions to all templates
openshift.io/discription is copied from the description annotation. The script I ran cleaned up some of the spacing inconsistencies too(Is that okay?). Let me know what you think and what needs to be changed