Project

General

Profile

Feature #24447

mgr/dashboard: Add UI support for managing roles

Added by Ricardo Marques 6 months ago. Updated 3 months ago.

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
Normal
Category:
dashboard/general
Target version:
Start date:
06/07/2018
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Source:
Tags:
Backport:
Reviewed:
Affected Versions:
Pull request ID:

Description

Currently the role management is only available from the command line.

Ceph dashboard should provide a UI to manage roles.

role-management-view-v1.png View (45.4 KB) Ricardo Marques, 07/27/2018 10:05 AM

role-management-edit-v1.png View (33.9 KB) Ricardo Marques, 07/27/2018 10:05 AM


Related issues

Related to mgr - Cleanup #25136: mgr/dashboard: Security role names should be consistent with the UI Feedback 07/27/2018
Related to mgr - Cleanup #25137: mgr/dashboard: Security permission names should be consistent with the UI New 07/27/2018
Related to mgr - Feature #24267: mgr/dashboard: support roles and privileges Resolved 05/24/2018
Blocked by mgr - Feature #25138: mgr/dashboard: Add API support for managing roles Resolved 07/27/2018

History

#1 Updated by Ricardo Marques 6 months ago

  • Tracker changed from Bug to Feature

#2 Updated by Ricardo Marques 6 months ago

  • Status changed from New to In Progress
  • Assignee changed from Lenz Grimmer to Ricardo Marques

#3 Updated by Ricardo Marques 5 months ago

UI Mockup - View v1

UI Mockup - Edit v1

#4 Updated by Ernesto Puerta 5 months ago

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.

#5 Updated by Lenz Grimmer 5 months ago

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.

#6 Updated by Lenz Grimmer 5 months ago

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.

#7 Updated by Ricardo Marques 5 months ago

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>`)?

#8 Updated by Ju Lim 5 months ago

+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?

#9 Updated by Ricardo Marques 5 months ago

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.

#10 Updated by Ricardo Marques 5 months ago

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").

#11 Updated by Ricardo Marques 5 months ago

  • Related to Cleanup #25136: mgr/dashboard: Security role names should be consistent with the UI added

#12 Updated by Ricardo Marques 5 months ago

  • Related to Cleanup #25137: mgr/dashboard: Security permission names should be consistent with the UI added

#13 Updated by Ricardo Marques 5 months ago

  • Blocked by Feature #25138: mgr/dashboard: Add API support for managing roles added

#14 Updated by Ernesto Puerta 5 months ago

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?

#15 Updated by Volker Theile 5 months ago

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.

#16 Updated by Ju Lim 5 months ago

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

#17 Updated by Lenz Grimmer 4 months ago

  • Related to Feature #24267: mgr/dashboard: support roles and privileges added

#18 Updated by Ricardo Marques 4 months ago

  • Status changed from In Progress to Need Review

#19 Updated by Lenz Grimmer 3 months ago

  • Status changed from Need Review to Resolved
  • Target version set to v14.0.0

Also available in: Atom PDF