Implement Transactional flag

[jreidinger]

Problem

There is no indication if btrfs volume will be read only or not.

Solution

Implement it.

Testing

• Tested manually

Screenshots

Note: No suitable icon in materials not found ( at least I do not like any of them ).

[coveralls]

coverage: 75.114% (+0.006%) from 75.108% when pulling 3b5b5ba on transactional_volume into 23082d7 on master.

[dgdavid]

So far, LGTM. But have a look to these console.log. I think they are no really needed :)

[dgdavid]

Tested manually

@jreidinger I have added few unit tests for the UI part. Hope you don't mind. Please, have a look.

[dgdavid]

LGTM

[dgdavid]

Sorry, I think this one deserves an entry in the changelog files

[ancorgs]

I have concerns regarding the wording. This is not exactly a "read-only" filesystem.

I will elaborate (entering a meeting now)

[jreidinger]

@ancorgs OK, I will wait.

[ancorgs]

volume.btrfs.read_only? does not really mean the file-system is read-only.

To be precise, it means the root subvolume of the Btrfs file-system is read-only. But that does not apply to the whole file-system. Other subvolumes on the same Btrfs file-system (like /home, /opt, /srv or /var) are still writable.

If I see a Volume with an attribute ReadOnly set to true or if a see a read-only label in the table of volumes in the UI, I would expect the whole volume/filesystem to be read-only. Maybe we even have an use-case for that in the future.

I don't know how to name the D-Bus property or the label in the UI, but I don't like the current ReadOnly and read-only. Maybe we should try with "transactional".

[jreidinger]

@ancorgs OK, makes sense. So lets use transactional name instead. I am just not sure if it btrfs exclusive

[ancorgs]

LGTM

[jreidinger]

@dgdavid Can you please also recheck? as it looks like your requests to change blocks merge

[dgdavid]

LGTM, just check the comment for translators