Create Flavor dialog should not have a Flavor ID field
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
OpenStack Compute (nova) |
Invalid
|
Undecided
|
Unassigned | ||
OpenStack Dashboard (Horizon) |
Fix Released
|
Medium
|
Gabriel Hurley |
Bug Description
Currently the Create Flavor dialog in the SysPanel has an editable Flavor ID field. It should not be displayed.
=====UPDATE (gabriel)=====
As per conversation with Vish on IRC: The reason the flavor ID field is exposed is because it's really a misnomer. The "id" field there is not the internal auto-incremented ID for the flavor, but in fact a user-facing reference ID. It is editable so that an admin can "delete" (set delete=1 in the DB) a flavor and replace it with a new flavor of the same id, thereby allowing the admin to effectively "replace" a flavor without disassociating the flavor from existing instances.
As such, the best UX Horizon can offer is to cheat, and make the behavior described above an "edit" interface which does a delete-
Changed in nova: | |
status: | New → Confirmed |
assignee: | nobody → devendra (devedevendra) |
Changed in nova: | |
assignee: | devendra (devedevendra) → nobody |
description: | updated |
Changed in horizon: | |
status: | In Progress → Fix Committed |
Changed in horizon: | |
status: | Fix Committed → Fix Released |
Changed in horizon: | |
milestone: | folsom-3 → 2012.2 |
Flavor ID is a required field which used to initialize to a blank value, however, to improve the UX we are now providing an ID on the client-side by taking the highest flavor ID and adding 1. Not sure why flavor ID isn't handled by nova, however, that's another conversation. Are you sure we want to remove the field given given that this is something we are calculating? The use case would be: a user creates a flavor with ID 100 via the CLI even though there are only 5 other flavors with IDs 1-5. If a user tries to create a new flavor via the UI the flavor will have an ID of 101 (instead of 6) and the user will have no way of changing that (if the field is hidden).
Thoughts?