Hello I lean towards the second atm, if taxonomies are enabled we should not add more actions leading to hosts being unassociated. I consider host without organization in organization enabled instance as a bug. Long term I'd like to see all hosts that are unassociated today being in fact associated to some default org. Once we have that, we could set the host association to this new default org on organization deletion.
Anyway if there are more votes for option 1, I as a user would like to know that there were some hosts that were moved to the unasssociated hosts bucket. At least a warning would be good. -- Marek On Wednesday 08 of June 2016 16:23:48 Tom McKay wrote: > To me, as a user, if I delete an org (or location) I'd simply want the > foreman resources to be unassociated from it. It may be the case, for > example, that a resource like a provisioning template is shared among > multiple orgs. A host is different, I know, in that it can belong to only > one org but I would still lean towards consistency by throwing it into the > bucket of unassociated hosts. > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Partha Aji <[email protected]> wrote: > > While working on one of the org deletion bugs ( > > http://projects.theforeman.org/issues/15336) I hit upon this > > inconsistency in Foreman code base and would like suggestions on the > > agreeable behavior. > > > > So here is the user action > > 1) User creates an org > > 2) Assigns a host to that org > > 3) Deletes that org > > > > There seem to be 2 different approaches taken in the foreman code > > 1) > > https://github.com/theforeman/foreman/blob/develop/app/models/taxonomies/o > > rganization.rb#L8 seems to indicate the intention to nullify the > > organization-host > > association if organization gets deleted. This tells me that its ok to > > delete the org with hosts associated to it. > > "has_many_hosts :dependent => :nullify" > > > > 2) > > https://github.com/theforeman/foreman/blob/develop/test/functional/api/v2/ > > locations_controller_test.rb#L74 seems to indicate we do Not want to > > delete orgs/locations if hosts are attached to it. "should NOT destroy > > location if hosts use it" . > > > > Looking at the commit dates for both, they were merged a mere month after > > each other (jan - feb 2013). 2 came before 1 . > > > > I prefer 1 over 2 .. Unassociate the Org from the Host if the org gets > > deleted instead of blocking the delete. Whats your preferred approach. > > Kindly let me know. > > > > Partha > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "foreman-dev" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > email to [email protected]. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foreman-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
