Feature #1053

Willingness to change a VRE name has severe implications

Added by Leonardo Candela over 4 years ago. Updated 10 months ago.

Status:ClosedStart date:Oct 16, 2015
Priority:NormalDue date:
Assignee:Luca Frosini% Done:

0%

Category:vre-management
Sprint:zz - Smartgears
Milestones:
Duration:

Description

If a VRE designer/manager is willing to change the VRE name after the VRE has been created, the only possibility is to decommission the existing VRE and create a new one.

This is due to a misuse of the VRE name, it is actually used like the "unique identifier" in many contexts (e.g. scope, workspace).

The ideal solution should be to use a real ID for referring to the VRE. The metadata of the VRE must be stored in a "resource" on the IS that associate that metadata with the VRE Identifier.

For the sake of "readability" it is always possible to "replace" the ID with the "VRE name" ... for identification we should refrain from using "names".

History

#1 Updated by Massimiliano Assante almost 4 years ago

  • Status changed from New to Rejected

these limitations are due to the current technology limitations, it does not have to to with the VRE Wizard, you should take this requirement into account when designing the new Information System

#2 Updated by Massimiliano Assante almost 4 years ago

  • Status changed from Rejected to Closed

#3 Updated by Leonardo Candela almost 4 years ago

  • Status changed from Closed to In Progress

I suggest to keep the ticket open, we do not have to work on it right now.

Moreover, my feeling is that the limitation is not only a matter of the IS rather it is a matter of how the services involved in VRE creation and management exploit it. Please, feel free to re-assign the ticket to someone else if you feel that you are not the right assignee. The ticket should remain "open".

#4 Updated by Massimiliano Assante almost 4 years ago

  • Assignee changed from Massimiliano Assante to Luca Frosini

#5 Updated by Massimiliano Assante almost 4 years ago

I'm assigning this to @luca.frosini@isti.cnr.it because this requirement should be taken into account also for the design if the new IS

#6 Updated by Luca Frosini almost 4 years ago

I already discussed about this with @pasquale.pagano@isti.cnr.it and the solution is the one you suggested Leonardo.
This has a huge impact on many components (i.e storage, home-library, accounting).
I already thought for a workaround that works well for accounting.
The workaround for old VRE can be that the id will be the old full scope. The new one (IMHO) should be generated randomly and should be an UUID.
Otherwise we have to create scripts to replace the old values.
This task can be accomplished only when the new IS will be available.

#7 Updated by Pasquale Pagano almost 4 years ago

  • Status changed from In Progress to Paused

#8 Updated by Luca Frosini almost 4 years ago

  • Due date set to Dec 31, 2016

#9 Updated by Luca Frosini almost 4 years ago

  • Sprint changed from zz - VRE Wizards Enhancements and Bugfixes to zz - Smartgears

#10 Updated by Luca Frosini over 3 years ago

  • % Done changed from 0 to 30

#11 Updated by Luca Frosini about 3 years ago

  • % Done changed from 30 to 50

The new authentication mechanism together with the new Information System will enable this feature.
The feature is already implemented in resource registry ref #5066.

The feature will be available when the new information system will replace the existing one.

I don't know which is the impact on:

I think is better to open a discussion on social part of gcube VRE.
@pasquale.pagano@isti.cnr.it do you think is better starting to create it right now or after review?

#12 Updated by Pasquale Pagano about 3 years ago

I think that the discussion can be opened now but nothing will happen if we don't deliver the new Resource Manager

#13 Updated by Luca Frosini about 3 years ago

Ok. I'm going to create it.

#14 Updated by Luca Frosini about 3 years ago

  • Due date changed from Dec 31, 2016 to Dec 31, 2017

Postponing the due date of this ticket because it cannot be managed if we don't have new Resource Manager and I got any feedback from VRE discussion.
I'll try to push for feedback after review.

#15 Updated by Luca Frosini over 2 years ago

Pushing for feedback

#16 Updated by Luca Frosini about 2 years ago

  • Due date deleted (Dec 31, 2017)

#17 Updated by Luca Frosini about 1 year ago

  • Priority changed from Low to Normal

We should start to think about this.

#18 Updated by Luca Frosini 10 months ago

  • % Done changed from 50 to 0
  • Status changed from Paused to Closed

This ticket is rather old. I'm going to close it. We will reopen a new one when the issue will become important

Also available in: Atom PDF