On Thursday 09 of June 2016 14:33:04 Stephen Benjamin wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Marek Hulán" <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: "Tom McKay" <[email protected]>, "ohadlevy" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 10:37:23 AM > > Subject: Re: [foreman-dev] Org with host deletion question > > > > 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. > > Yea but the default org stuff is just totally broken. We tried to set this > by default (there are settings to do this) and stuff explodes because Puppet > parser generated objects don't get in a taxonomy. It's not trivial at all.
Yes, that's why I said long term. I'm just trying to not make the situation even worse until we get to the point where we feel comfortable with how taxonomies work. > > 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. > > I would vote for disassociating, the "XX is still used by YY" errors in > Foreman are very frustrating, and in this case I don't think it's > especially unwarranted. Giving the user a warning saves them a lot of > hassle. If the hosts aren't useful anymore, they can then go and delete > them, or if they want to keep using them, assign them to new > orgs/locations. How about it would let me choose which org/loc the host should be reassigned during the deletion? And if it's too strict, there could be one option - leave disassociated ideally with some hint that such host are only visible in any context. -- Marek > > > -- > > 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/taxonomi > > > > es/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. -- 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.
