Removed duplicate report

[nimrodshn]

Due to #14494 I have removed the the duplicate report and renamed the old one for consistency with widgets.

cc @kbrock @simon3z @moolitayer

[miq-bot]

Checked commit nimrodshn@47a5df0 with ruby 2.2.6, rubocop 0.47.1, and haml-lint 0.20.0
0 files checked, 0 offenses detected
Everything looks good. 🏆

[nimrodshn]

I have tested widgets and report to see changes did not affect them:
Report:

Widgets (top two):

Everything seems to work fine (to be expected..)

[nimrodshn]

@miq-bot add_label providers/containers reporting

[miq-bot]

@nimrodshn Cannot apply the following label because they are not recognized: providers/containers reporting

[nimrodshn]

and again - thanks to @kbrock for the catch!

[moolitayer]

@nimrodshn what is the meaning of

miq_group_id: 1
user_id: 1

asking since they exists only in the report the remains

Also this exists only in the file you removed, not sure what it does:

filename: 170_Configuration Management - Containers/060_Container Groups per Ready Status.yaml

[moolitayer]

@miq-bot add_label bug, providers/containers, reporting
fix #14494

[nimrodshn]

@moolitayer I think it has something to do with who is allowed to use this report.. to be quite honest I'm not sure as I did not write this report - Although from previous discussion I had (I think with @zeari) I think it can be removed. Also note they exist in other reports (say 020_Nodes by CPU Usage.yaml).

As for your'e other question the line you are pointing to is exactly the reason we are deleting that report - it turns out it was a duplicate of the one I renamed - moreover it didn't do anything but draw information from that one so I just deleted it and renamed the old one as to be consistent with other widgets I had brought in.

[zeari]

@moolitayer I think it has something to do with who is allowed to use this report.. to be quite honest I'm not sure as I did not write this report - Although from previous discussion I had (I think with @zeari) I think it can be removed. Also note they exist in other reports (say 020_Nodes by CPU Usage.yaml).

AFAIK, miq_group_id and user_id shouldnt be in 'out of the box' reports.

@nimrodshn LGTM (im counting on you that none of the related widgets\reports reports fail)

[moolitayer]

I'm in favor of going for the other solution @kbrock suggested in #14494: renaming the duplicate title. Maybe also comment. The reason is that old scheduled reports and widgets would fail. @kbrock @simon3z WDYT?

[kbrock]

@moolitayer they look like duplicates to me.
Not sure what you would do to change the title for 2 identical reports

[nimrodshn]

@kbrock I think what @moolitayer is saying is that once I delete one of the reports (either the dup or the original) users who are using it as base for custom widgets will lose their widgets since they are based on a report which exist no more. Although, renaming one of the reports is the same as removing it - So I don't see how this gets around this.. what do you think?

[kbrock]

@nimrodshn Do custom widgets to reference reports by name? If so, then there shouldn't be a problem.

If not, then can we write a migration?
To be honest, since reports are unique by name, I'm not sure if we will have to go into the db and manually delete one of these reports.

[nimrodshn]

@kbrock Custom widgets (as do "out of the box" widgets) reference reports by name.

[kbrock]

@nimrodshn Phew. I was concerned that I was totally off here.

@kbrock I think what @moolitayer is saying is that once I delete one of the reports (either the dup or the original) users who are using it as base for custom widgets will lose their widgets since they are based on a report which exist no more. Although, renaming one of the reports is the same as removing it - So I don't see how this gets around this.. what do you think?

Please do not rename.

The original and custom widgets refer to a report by name.
We don't know which report will be returned. Luckily both reports have the same data.
After you delete this file, the widgets system refer to a single report with this name.
So nothing will break.
It will actually be more stable.

[moolitayer]

@kbrock @nimrodshn sorry for holding this back. Just to be sure

• what about scheduled reports? do we need to migrate that?
• when you say widgets refer to reports by name do you mean menu_name, title or filename?

[nimrodshn]

@moolitayer

when you say widgets refer to reports by name do you mean menu_name, title or filename?

I mean resource_name.
So, if you look at 'Pods per Ready' chart/widget (at product/dashboard/widgets) you will find both are "pointing to" the Pods per Ready report - the Duplicate - that is why I had changed the original name to that - So that I will be able to produce those widgets.

@kbrock if I take you're route I need to change the OOTB widgets ('Pods per Ready' chart/widget) to point to the duplicate.. are you okay with this?

[moolitayer]

I mean resource_name.
So, if you look at 'Pods per Ready' chart/widget (at product/dashboard/widgets) you will find both are "pointing to" the Pods per Ready report - the Duplicate - that is why I had changed the original name to that - So that I will be able to produce those widgets.

Oh so resource_name points to the reports' title

[nimrodshn]

@moolitayer Precisely!