Enable MW Compliance and Control policies

[karelhala]

Introduces new menu item in Policies

Middleware provider needs to set up Compliance and Control policies. Base model is MW server, to create policy for EAP we have to cewate policy with scope somehow set to EAP.

[karelhala]

@miq-bot add_label enhancement, middlaware

[miq-bot]

@karelhala Cannot apply the following label because they are not recognized: middlaware

[karelhala]

@miq-bot add_label middleware

[abonas]

I'm comparing this PR with my old PR that attempts doing the same
(#1934)
I see that not the same files are changed here and in that PR. I wonder how is that possible :)
Is this PR also handling the dropdown like #1934? It will also need this PR iirc

[abonas]

@miq-bot add_label control

[abonas]

@jdoyleoss @Loicavenel I'd like to make sure - is this how you envision this feature in regards to EAP? that it's a sub category under middleware servers? (not saying it is incorrect, would like to verify with you that was the intention)

[karelhala]

@abonas all should be done, this enables MW policies in control panel, but no button inside server to assign policies to specific entities. Because if I understand assigning of policies correctly if you were to add policy on Provider level, you will also assign such policy for all it's servers (which is OK) and all server's items (datasources, deployments and such) - might not be OK. But I might be mistaken @Loicavenel is this correct?

[abonas]

@abonas all should be done, this enables MW policies in control panel, but no button inside server to assign policies to specific entities. Because if I understand assigning of policies correctly if you were to add policy on Provider level, you will also assign such policy for all it's servers (which is OK) and all server's items (datasources, deployments and such) - might not be OK. But I might be mistaken @Loicavenel is this correct?

@karelhala I think you misunderstood my question, but the above also is an important thing to verify:

• shouldn't we be able to assign an expression based on server's children?
  something like this? (and in this case PR #16312 misses some config)
• per my original question - this UI lists MiddlewareServer as the top entity. At some point in the past @jdoyleoss wanted EAP to be top level entity. this is part of the reasons we had this change. perhaps I am completely misunderstanding something here... :)

[Loicavenel]

Based on the screenshots, this is what we discussed before and this will work.
What we discussed few times and I am not sure if you will implement it in the future is the Middleware Modeling:

1 - Everything is an EAP Server and this is a parameter that identify the Type: Fuse, DataVirt etc..
2 - There is one Object per Type: Fuse, DataVirt etc...

[abonas]

Based on the screenshots, this is what we discussed before and this will work.
What we discussed few times and I am not sure if you will implement it in the future is the Middleware Modeling:

1 - Everything is an EAP Server and this is a parameter that identify the Type: Fuse, DataVirt etc..

don't know what DataVirt is, but not everything is an EAP server.
and Fuse != EAP. @jdoyleoss please confirm

2 - There is one Object per Type: Fuse, DataVirt etc...

probably a more correct approach

[jdoyleoss]

Please proceed as shown in the screenshots. This is what was agreed in the JIRA. We are breaking out the different middleware servers as different types, so I expect that we will make distinction based upon that once we get Fuse and others in. ~john

…

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:50 PM, abonas ***@***.***> wrote: Based on the screenshots, this is what we discussed before and this will work. What we discussed few times and I am not sure if you will implement it in the future is the Middleware Modeling: 1 - Everything is an EAP Server and this is a parameter that identify the Type: Fuse, DataVirt etc.. don't know what DataVirt is, but not everything is an EAP server. and Fuse != EAP. @jdoyleoss <https://github.com/jdoyleoss> please confirm 2 - There is one Object per Type: Fuse, DataVirt etc... probably a more correct approach — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2436 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAfbZSZHUKiXRhQDmAPcMHOkLsNQUxYHks5swMaCgaJpZM4P9ScI> .

[karelhala]

@miq-bot assign @martinpovolny

[karelhala]

@miq-bot assign @gtanzillo

[miq-bot]

This pull request is not mergeable. Please rebase and repush.

[abonas]

@karelhala this needs a rebase and repush
@chessbyte who would be the most relevant person to review this PR about policies?

[abonas]

@aljesusg please review this as well

[karelhala]

Failing travis is not problem of this PR.

[miq-bot]

Checked commit karelhala@9b41315 with ruby 2.3.3, rubocop 0.47.1, and haml-lint 0.20.0
7 files checked, 0 offenses detected
Everything looks fine. 👍

[karelhala]

@miq-bot assign @h-kataria
@h-kataria can you please look at this and ManageIQ/manageiq#16312. Thank you.

[karelhala]

@martinpovolny or @h-kataria can you merge this? Travis error is not related.

[karelhala]

@miq-bot assign @martinpovolny

[h-kataria]

merging, Travis failures are unrelated to changes here.