> > Duration
> > New grammar allows DDHHMM for the duration. UI proposes to limit the
> > duration to less than 24 hours since more than 24 hour windows can start
> > overlapping and thus allowing to enter duration days was confusing to
> > the users who tried the UI.  We need to reconcile this a bit between
> > what can be stored and what can be displayed. IMO it makes sense to
> > allow windows more than 24 hours (regular service window over weekend
> > for example). But on the other hand I see how having a separate field
> > for number of duration days in the UI might be confusing. I would vote
> > for not having days in the UI at all but allowing any numeric value to
> > be entered into the hours field. This however rises a question whether
> > we want to have the duration be in DDHHMM format in grammar or in just
> > NMM format where N is any numeric value that represents unlimited number
> > of hours. Thoughts?
> I agree that we don't want to have > 24 hours in the UI.
> DDHHMM is easier to parse, and I can't come up with an example where a
> window of longer than 99 days makes sense. Instead, it should be a
> recurring event.

Steven, please think about the case when the rule needs to be edited in
UI and it has some value for DD - say 1.
What you display in UI then? If you do not allow to enter days and you
not allow more than 24 hours in the hour field you will fail to
translate the rule to the proposed UI.
The only option would be to show the raw rule in this case. IMO this
does not seem like the best option to me.
I think the DD is redundant and other means should be used to schedule
windows bigger than 2 days however the HH should IMO allow 1-48 ours to
allow specifying a week end outage like:
from 1AM Sat to 11PM Sun. If it is more than 2 days it is reasonable to
ask to split the rule into several slices.

Freeipa-devel mailing list

Thank you,
Dmitri Pal

Sr. Engineering Manager IPA project,
Red Hat Inc.

Looking to carve out IT costs?

Freeipa-devel mailing list

Reply via email to