[Ovirt-devel] [PATCH node] Added a wrapper script around the boot menu item to warn the users about the reboot

[Perry Myers]

Bryan Kearney wrote:
> Perry Myers wrote:
>> Question on this patch, why did you create a separate script to wrap 
>> the o-c-boot script instead of just putting a question at the top of 
>> the main section of the o-c-boot script itself?  You could just have 
>> o-c-boot be executed directly by the firstboot menu and the first 
>> thing it does is say "Are you sure" and if the user says No then it 
>> just exits back to the main menu.
> 
> This script is called several times, and it seemed ugly to put in an 
> "Interactive" parameter to look for. Since it is called interactive in 
> only one place, I figured it was cleaner to layer as opposed to add the 
> if checks and flag.

Ah, got it.  I was only thinking about the interactive case.  In the 
non-interactive case the o-c-boot script is called directly w/o the 
wrapper.  Ok, given that this seems ok to me.

>>
>> Also, do we have sanity checks in place for o-c-boot that check to 
>> make sure that other things have been run like o-c-networking and 
>> o-c-storage?  If we don't have this, add that to the top of main in 
>> o-c-boot along with the user question.
> 
> We do some basic checking, but nothing rock-solid. Do we check for an 
> initial state, or just provide text saying "You need to have done X,Y,Z 
> for this to work"

The latter won't work because o-c-storage doesn't guarantee that an ovirt 
Node partition was created, correct?  o-c-storage can be run just to 
create partitions for config/logging but not hard disk boot.  So the user 
could run o-c-storage, elect not to create a partition to store the Node 
itself and then try to run o-c-boot.  In this case o-c-boot would fail.

So I think we want to do checks that ensure that the minimum partitions 
are present with minimum recommended sizes.

For networking I think we can just check to see whether or not 
o-c-networking script was run or you could check for presence of ifcfg 
files.  This should be equivalent.

>>
>> Finally, in a fully automated boot (i.e. all opts passed on kernel 
>> cmdline) none of these user interactive questions should come up (this 
>> is probably the case, just stating to make sure it's clear)
> 
> Another reason for the wrapper :)

Yep.

Thanks,

Perry