Add note for storage class used on PVC grid

[zherman0]

We have a request to show which provisioner was used to create a claim. I have added a muted note next to the PVC name when a storage class was assigned.

[zherman0]

[spadgett]

I think I'd prefer it as another table column. Easier to see at a glance.

[spadgett]

cc @jwforres @erinboyd

[erinboyd]

@spadgett @zherman0 I think a column might be confusing as not all PVCs will be associated with a Storage Class. And you really don't have a way to auto hide it as this view shows all PVCs.
Thoughts?

[spadgett]

@erinboyd I don't feel that strongly. Will defer to you and @jwforres. We do have tables with columns that aren't always populated like routes.

[jwforres]

I think the question boils down to how often we expect people to be using storage classes vs not.

[spadgett]

If we expect the beta to eventually drop from the annotation name or storage class to ever be added as another API field, it's probably worth adding a storageClass filter. Then we can change it in one place (and fall back to looking for this annotation if needed). Something like we do for the description annotation.

https://github.com/openshift/origin-web-console/blob/master/app/scripts/filters/resources.js#L94-L100

  .filter('storageClass', function(annotationFilter) {
    return function(pvc) {
      return annotationFilter(pvc, 'volume.beta.kubernetes.io/storage-class');
    };
  })

Then here in the view

 <span ng-if="pvc | storageClass" class="text-muted"> using storage class {{pvc | storageClass}}</span>

This also makes the markup more concise.

[zherman0]

I agree, this will make things much nicer and be easier to update in the futures. Changes added.

[erinboyd]

I like that!

[zherman0]

@spadgett @erinboyd @jwforres I think whether to add a column or not will come down to how much people use the storage classes. Ideally, we would like them to be quickly adopted and every new claim is associated with a storage class. But time will tell. Let's leave it as is and we can very easily tweak it in the future.

[erinboyd]

@jwforres @spadgett @zherman0 Ideally, yes, we would hope that the majority of customers will leverage a storage class..so I guess in that case a column seems appropriate

[spadgett]

Ideally, yes, we would hope that the majority of customers will leverage a storage class..so I guess in that case a column seems appropriate

I'm OK with the PR as-is if we want to merge, unless @erinboyd you'd rather see this change

[erinboyd]

@spadgett LGTM

[spadgett]

thanks @zherman0

[merge]

[openshift-bot]

Evaluated for origin web console merge up to 5a52ce0

[openshift-bot]

Origin Web Console Merge Results: SUCCESS (https://ci.openshift.redhat.com/jenkins/job/test_pull_requests_origin_web_console/1005/) (Base Commit: 4eaf288)