Fix inconstancy of flash messages for Analysis Profiles and Schedules

[hstastna]

Fixes BZ: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1516895

---

Fix inconstancy of flash messages between addition vs. deletion of Analysis Profiles and Schedules, under Configuration -> Settings accordion.

Adding the profile named "Name1" with description "Desc1":

Before: (Name in the flash message):

After: " (Description in the flash message, the same as for deleting the profile):

Deleting the profile named "Name1" with description "Desc1" (we see Description in the flash message):

---

Details:
The problem with inconstancy is related to all of the records which have name AND also description. The inconstancy was caused in get_record_display_name method where description of the record is checked first (before name is checked) and returned, no chance to check also the name of the record. This happens when deleting the profile. When adding/editing the profile, there is a different way of adding flash message. We don't call any of the methods like get_record_display_name or so, we just simply add it and use the name, not description of profile. But I was told that we "use Description when record responds to description and has description populated regardless of whether name is present or not" so I made the change here (in ap_edit method), as I was suggested, to show description also when adding/editing the profile, not only when deleting it.

[hstastna]

@miq-bot add_label bug, gaprindashvili/yes

[hstastna]

@miq-bot remove_label wip

[mzazrivec]

I think that the above behavior is pretty much intentional. Am I correct @dclarizio ?

[dclarizio]

@mzazrivec @hstastna I'm gonna WIP this until I can discuss with @h-kataria as we've been working on getting these more consistent and I don't recall exactly what we decided on for strategy.

[hstastna]

@dclarizio @h-kataria Any update about this? Thank you! ❇️

[h-kataria]

@hstastna with the proposed change in this PR you are forcing code to use "Description" only when name is blank, we want to be consistent and use Description when record responds to description and has description populated regardless of whether name is present or not.
Note: This is a common method and will effect flash messages in many places in the UI.
I would rather suggest making a change to Add/edit method to call this common method https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq-ui-classic/pull/3800/files#diff-55c5b7aecfb519d0e4880eaf2788eb6eL2110 and let it decide whether to use description or name field.

[hstastna]

Thank you, @h-kataria , for your update ❇️ I was following the BZ. Anyway, I can try this change you suggest. Will update this PR with the change.

[hstastna]

@h-kataria I cannot use the common method in add/edit method (in analysis_profiles.rb) because record.respond_to?("whatever") will be always false, as the record does not exist yet, when creating/adding new profile, we have just @edit[:new]. It would also throw an error (because of no id in @edit[:new]). I think I need to change name to description in appropriate line of the code (when adding flash message to flash array). Could you check the new change in this PR? Thanks! :)

[h-kataria]

@hstastna can't you pass in scanitemset to the common method, i think that should work https://github.com/hstastna/manageiq-ui-classic/blob/e4d0031720b143dacec78f17228227a5178fef1b/app/controllers/ops_controller/settings/analysis_profiles.rb#L253

[hstastna]

@h-kataria yes, I can but I was worried about using scanitemset as the name of this variable is confusing for me.. and also because when adding flash message, there was not used scanitemset but @edit[:new]. So I wanted to keep this.

[hstastna]

@h-kataria now the fix should be ok :D

[h-kataria]

@hstastna can you add a spec test to verify changes in the fix

[hstastna]

@h-kataria @skateman I've added spec test for my change :)

[miq-bot]

Checked commits hstastna/manageiq-ui-classic@a099473~...c23cc00 with ruby 2.3.3, rubocop 0.52.1, haml-lint 0.20.0, and yamllint 1.10.0
2 files checked, 0 offenses detected
Everything looks fine. ⭐