Description
Chat about the design of dpp list (why do we have 2 kvs). Should we have a zone filter?
Service names (for example) do not contain the fully qualified name for the resource, therefore sometimes in listings you will see two services that can look as though they have the same name.
For example we saw two services with the name kv and it took a certain amount of "wait what!?" to then realize "oh they are in two different zones". Whilst we have zone column in the table, it wasn't immedately obvious that they were in two different zones because the zone information is "disconnected" from the name.
It would be a lot clearer if, whenever we display the "name of the thing" we also display the other stuff that is important and is the fully qualified name i.e. the zone and namespace.
I'd suggest something like:
the-name-of-the-thing
namespace / east-one-fhg
rather than:
the-name-of-the-thing | 0 / 0 / 0 | online | east-one-fhg
Just so happens the east-one-fhg is the name of the zone in the above example. In the column based view its "disconnected" from the name, not clear its the name of the zone and not clear that it is actually part of a fulkly qualified name in other words The ID.
Also see: #2978
This is a design question and shouldn't be worked on unless we get guidance from design. The issue is to track the design outcome.
Description
Service names (for example) do not contain the fully qualified name for the resource, therefore sometimes in listings you will see two services that can look as though they have the same name.
For example we saw two services with the name
kvand it took a certain amount of "wait what!?" to then realize "oh they are in two different zones". Whilst we have zone column in the table, it wasn't immedately obvious that they were in two different zones because the zone information is "disconnected" from the name.It would be a lot clearer if, whenever we display the "name of the thing" we also display the other stuff that is important and is the fully qualified name i.e. the zone and namespace.
I'd suggest something like:
rather than:
Just so happens the
east-one-fhgis the name of the zone in the above example. In the column based view its "disconnected" from the name, not clear its the name of the zone and not clear that it is actually part of a fulkly qualified name in other words The ID.Also see: #2978
This is a design question and shouldn't be worked on unless we get guidance from design. The issue is to track the design outcome.