Ceph » mgr » Dashboard

Not sure if this has already been discussed. Shouldn't we align component names across the dashboard to make naming consistent? I mean, for example: CephFS role vs. Filesystem page, rbd-{image,mirroring} roles vs. Block {image,mirroring} pages, rgw role vs. Object Gateway page. I understand this is not specific to this issue, but this is another place where it becomes visible.

Ernesto Puerta wrote:

Not sure if this has already been discussed. Shouldn't we align component names across the dashboard to make naming consistent? I mean, for example: CephFS role vs. Filesystem page, rbd-{image,mirroring} roles vs. Block {image,mirroring} pages, rgw role vs. Object Gateway page. I understand this is not specific to this issue, but this is another place where it becomes visible.

I agree. We should try to not refer to these components/services by their internal name (RGW, RBD), but rather use the more generic terms that are recognized by a storage administrator that has no deep Ceph expertise.

The UI mockups look good to me otherwise. I wonder if it would be better to replace "Update" with "Modify" though - IMHO this better explains what this permission is about.

Lenz Grimmer wrote:

The UI mockups look good to me otherwise. I wonder if it would be better to replace "Update" with "Modify" though - IMHO this better explains what this permission is about.

Are you suggesting to rename from "Update" do "Modify" only in the UI, or also in the command line (`ceph dashboard ac-role-add-scope-perms <rolename> <scopename> <permissions>`)?

+1 on being consistent with terminology.

I was going to suggest instead of Update to use the term Edit since it's already used elsewhere. Partly to be consistent with the rest of the places it current appears. E.g. at the top I see "Edit" [Role]. However, if we decide on Modify, then all the places (e.g. action buttons) should also have the same label.

Thoughts?

Ju Lim wrote:

+1 on being consistent with terminology.

I was going to suggest instead of Update to use the term Edit (vs. Modify). Partly to be consistent with the rest of the places it current appears. E.g. at the top I see "Edit" [Role]. However, if we decide on Modify, then all the places (e.g. action buttons) should also have the same label.

Thoughts?

I Agree, and will renaming the action button to "Edit" (in all forms), for consistency. With regards to Lenz suggestion, I thinks it only applies to the column name in the permissions table.

Lenz Grimmer wrote:

Ernesto Puerta wrote:

Not sure if this has already been discussed. Shouldn't we align component names across the dashboard to make naming consistent? I mean, for example: CephFS role vs. Filesystem page, rbd-{image,mirroring} roles vs. Block {image,mirroring} pages, rgw role vs. Object Gateway page. I understand this is not specific to this issue, but this is another place where it becomes visible.

I agree. We should try to not refer to these components/services by their internal name (RGW, RBD), but rather use the more generic terms that are recognized by a storage administrator that has no deep Ceph expertise.

Agree. I'll submit a separate issue to improve these names and other issue to add support for descriptions in "Permissions" (similar to what we have in "Roles").

I agree. We should try to not refer to these components/services by their internal name (RGW, RBD), but rather use the more generic terms that are recognized by a storage administrator that has no deep Ceph expertise.

Agree. I'll submit a separate issue to improve these names and other issue to add support for descriptions in "Permissions" (similar to what we have in "Roles").

Have to say that I'm not 100% positioned here: Filesystem or Block are more meaningful than a mere CephFS or RBD, yes, but, on the other hand, we should expect some level of expertise from the Ceph-Dashboard users. And we won't be able to totally get rid of 'rbd', 'rgw' or 'cephfs' terms, as long as they will remain in config options, pool names, error messages, log traces and monitoring metric names.

And, other question on this regard: how far should we go with this 'translation'? Metadata Server for MDS? Object Storage Daemon for OSD? 'Integrity checking' for 'scrubbing'? Is this not counter-intuitive for established Ceph operators?

I suggest to use the checkbox icons (https://fontawesome.com/icons/check-square?style=regular and https://fontawesome.com/icons/square?style=regular) or at least a minus icon instead of the X in the details page.

Just noting that I posted on https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/25136 comments regarding terminology feedback.