Summary:
Ref T5833. This allows Almanac ServiceTypes to define default properties for a service, which show up in the UI and are more easily editable.
Overall, this makes it much easier to make structured/usable/consistent service records: you can check a checkbox that says "prevent new allocations" instead of needing to know the meaning of a key.
Test Plan: {F251593}
Reviewers: chad, btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T5833
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10996
Summary:
Ref T5833. Adds support for arbitrary properites to Almanac devices and bindings.
- For Devices, this allows you to maybe mark what `rack` a server is on, the `serial` number of a router, etc.
- For Bindings, this allows you to maybe mark that a bound device is `active`, provide `credentials`, expose it as `readonly`, etc.
Test Plan: Added properties to Devices and Bindings.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T5833
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10781
Summary:
Ref T5833. Currently, we have an `AlmanacDeviceProperty`, but it doesn't use CustomFields and is specific to devices. Make this more generic:
- Reuse most of the CustomField infrastructure (so we can eventually get easy support for nice editor UIs, etc).
- Make properties more generic so Services, Bindings and Devices can all have them.
The major difference between this implementation and existing CustomField implementations is that all other implementations are application-authoritative: the application code determines what the available list of fields is.
I want Almanac to be a bit more freeform (basically: you can write whatever properties you want, and we'll put nice UIs on them if we have a nice UI available). For example, we might have some sort of "ServiceTemplate" that says "a database binding should usually have the fields 'writable', 'active', 'credential'", which would do things like offer these as options and put a nice UI on them, but you should also be able to write whatever other properties you want and add services without building a specific service template for them.
This involves a little bit of rule bending, but ends up pretty clean. We can adjust CustomField to accommodate this a bit more gracefully later on if it makes sense.
Test Plan: {F229172}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T5833
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10777
Summary: Ref T5833. See that task for functional goals and some discussion of design.
Test Plan: See screenshots.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T5833
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D10713
