Project

General

Profile

Bug #32169

Don't advertise unsupported UPS types

Added by Benno Rice about 1 year ago. Updated about 1 year ago.

Status:
Done
Priority:
No priority
Assignee:
Benno Rice
Category:
OS
Target version:
Seen in:
Severity:
Low
Reason for Closing:
Reason for Blocked:
Needs QA:
No
Needs Doc:
No
Needs Merging:
No
Needs Automation:
No
Support Suite Ticket:
n/a
Hardware Configuration:
ChangeLog Required:
No

Description

There are a bunch of UPSes that NUT supports using its netxml-ups driver. I have no idea whether these are still on the market and how widely used they are.

Our UPS configuration page provides a large list of UPS models and the drivers they use. The UPSes supported by netxml-ups are present in this list. What isn't present on FreeNAS is the actual netxml-ups driver.

We should either install this or remove the UPS models it supports from the driver list.

History

#1 Updated by Dru Lavigne about 1 year ago

  • Assignee changed from Release Council to Alexander Motin
  • Target version set to 11.2-RC2

#2 Updated by Alexander Motin about 1 year ago

  • Assignee changed from Alexander Motin to Benno Rice

Digging through the commit history I found that NEON was disabled from the day of NUT addition by William 7 years ago. My main guess why it could be excluded is a very limited space on a boot device of those times, while NEON is an external library. Any other ideas, William? Now the space question is not so strict, so I would say that staying close with FreeBSD port defaults could be a bigger benefit, unless this hardware is completely dead now. Google for it please. On the other side, if this code allows easy UPS support testing, QA could be interested even if there is no real hardware.

#3 Updated by William Grzybowski about 1 year ago

NEON was disabled because it was bringing a whole lot of dependencies.

Even though we have more space I prefer to stay as small as possible unless there is a real a reason add things.

We have this for many years and nobody has ever asked for this so that must mean something.

#4 Updated by Alexander Motin about 1 year ago

That is true. Lets at least look what it would cost us. Benno hit it looking for a way to test UPS code, so I suppose, so it may be counted as case of "asked". :) Though there can be other alternatives for testing.

#5 Updated by William Grzybowski about 1 year ago

Historically I have used dummy-ups driver for testing.

#6 Updated by Nick Wolff about 1 year ago

  • Severity set to Low

#7 Updated by Benno Rice about 1 year ago

I honestly don't mind which way this goes. It's not so much about our ability to test as it is preventing future user confusion when someone tries to use that driver and it doesn't work.

#8 Updated by Benno Rice about 1 year ago

Candidate fix that filters the UPS dropdown based on which UPS drivers are actually present:

https://github.com/freenas/freenas/tree/bjr-upsblacklist

#9 Updated by Benno Rice about 1 year ago

  • Status changed from Unscreened to In Progress

#10 Updated by Benno Rice about 1 year ago

  • Status changed from In Progress to Ready for Testing

#11 Updated by Dru Lavigne about 1 year ago

  • Subject changed from UPS service offers support for netxml-ups driver which isn't present to Don't advertise unsupported UPS types
  • Target version changed from 11.2-RC2 to 11.2-BETA1
  • Needs Doc changed from Yes to No
  • Needs Merging changed from Yes to No

#12 Updated by Nick Wolff about 1 year ago

  • Status changed from Ready for Testing to Passed Testing

Verified that mentioned UPSes no longer appear in ups service config

#13 Updated by Dru Lavigne about 1 year ago

  • Status changed from Passed Testing to Done
  • Needs QA changed from Yes to No

Also available in: Atom PDF