[Ovirt-devel] oVirt testing

[Tim Allen]

On Jun 5, 2008, at 10:36 AM, Scott Seago wrote:

> Tim Allen wrote:
>> comments below..
>>
>> On Jun 5, 2008, at 7:17 AM, Chris Lalancette wrote:
>>
>>> So I've started testing out the WUI, and here's what I've got for  
>>> bugs so far
>>> (in the order I found them, not in order of importance):
>>>
>>> 1.  In the "Host" tab, it displays a list of hosts; good.   
>>> However, when I check
>>> a few of them and say "Delete", it doesn't actually do anything.
>>>
> 1) "delete" should be "remove" -- I need to fix that -- it's  
> supposed to move them to the 'default' pool.
> 2) are you in the 'default' pool when you're doing this? Maybe we  
> should hide this button for the default pool, as it doesn't do  
> anything useful
I agree, there's no reason to have the button in the default pool.
>
>>> 2.  In the "Storage" tab, the distinction between "Add Storage  
>>> Server" and
>>> "Create Storage Server" is very, very unclear.  I'm not sure how  
>>> to better
>>> structure it, but first-time users are never going to figure it out.
>> The design for this aims for it to be clearer.  Check out fig.  
>> 9a-9c here >
>> http://devserv.devel.redhat.com/~tallen/design/  I believe that  
>> scott and co. were going to work on updating the build post-summit
> Yes, the distinction is 'create' adds a new DB record and queries  
> libvirt for volumes, and 'add' is, just like host add, moves a pool  
> from another HW pool to here. The final design has this on a single  
> tabbed popup.

>
>>>
>>> 5.  There are way too many "Are you sure?" popup boxes in the  
>>> WUI.  Just a
>>> personal preference, but unless an action is undoable, you don't  
>>> need a popup
>>> box (they just get annoying).
>> Most of these messages are supposed to be passive confirmation  
>> messages that should be timed and require no user input.  Scott and  
>> I talked about this earlier but perhaps there was a  
>> miscommunication.  Scott, are these placeholders?  Let me know if I  
>> should spec when we need a passive vs. challenging messages.
> Two types of popups here:
> 1) "Are you sure?" popups
> 2) passive confirmations after the action
>
> For the "are you sure" popups, they're mostly used for delete and  
> similar actions (cancel tasks, etc.) which are not undoable. I've  
> noted one exception (disable host) that I need to fix.
>
> For the confirmations, these were added to make it clear to the user  
> that a certain action happened. i.e. "VM was created" They're not  
> really placeholders, as I though we actually wanted to do basic  
> javascript confirmations -- they don't have a yes/no choice, but  
> they do need to be clicked.
We definitely don't want the passive confirmations to require user  
input.
>
>
> The standard rails way of doing this (which doesn't work out-of-the- 
> box anymore with the ajax stuff) is to put an alert message inline  
> on the page which (I _think_) disappears after a few seconds. If you  
> want a confirmation that doesn't require the user to click it, we  
> should probably do something similar. not sure if we want this to be  
> "yet another facebox popup" or if a simple inline div that we can  
> update would be better though -- and I'm not sure _when_ this would  
> fit into the roadmap.
A simple inline div that we can show/hide/update should be fine for  
this.  I'll post a design proposal for this.
>
>>>
>>>
>>> 6.  Clicking the "Refresh" Button on a storage pool doesn't seem  
>>> to do anything
>>> (at least, it didn't add a new task to the database).
>>>
> I need to look into this. it should add a new task, but we have no  
> UI to show this, so I may not have tested it properly.
>>> 7.  Clicking on the "Delete" button on the lower part of the  
>>> Storage page for a
>>> storage pool doesn't seem to do anything; however, checking the  
>>> storage pool and
>>> clicking "Delete" on the upper part of the page does work.
>>>
> Another one to test again :-)
>>> 8.  After deleting a storage pool, the summary for the now deleted  
>>> storage pool
>>> is still on the lower part of the page; that should probably be  
>>> blanked out.
>>>
> This one is also a known issue -- I hadn't gotten around to fixing  
> it yet. Lower priority than the 'delete doesn't work' bits, but  
> hopefully I can track it down quickly
>>> 9.  There's both a "Delete" button and "Remove" button on the  
>>> Storage tab;
>>> Delete does what it says, while Remove seems to do nothing.  I'm  
>>> not sure what
>>> the distinction between them is.
>> The design aims to make the distinction clearer.  Check out fig. 9d  
>> > http://devserv.devel.redhat.com/~tallen/design/
>> I think this was a post-summit improvement also.  Scott?
> This is for later -- we will put them together in a small dialog.  
> The distinction, though, is analogous to the add vs. create one.  
> "Delete" makes it go away, and "remove" moves it to 'default'
> You might have been in the 'default' pool when you tried this --  
> again, we should probably hide this button in 'default'.
I agree, there's no reason to have the button in the default pool.
>
>
> Scott