Add VR's system offering to network listing

[erikbocks]

Description

When listing network offerings with the listNetworkOfferings API, the VR's system offering ID is already returned. However, this information is not present at the GUI. Thus, changes were made to the listNetworkOfferings response to also return the system offering's name, and to the GUI to display the network offering's system offering as a column.

Types of changes

• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• Enhancement (improves an existing feature and functionality)
• Cleanup (Code refactoring and cleanup, that may add test cases)
• Build/CI
• Test (unit or integration test code)

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

• Major
• Minor

Screenshots (if appropriate):

How Has This Been Tested?

In a environment without the changes, the Network Offerings tab was accessed and I validated that there was no system offering information. With CloudMonkey, I called the listNetworkOfferings API and validated that the response contained only the system offering's ID.

Then, after installing the packages containing the PR changes, I called the listNetworkOfferings API and validated that the API response now also returned the service offering's name.

{
      "displaytext": "Offering for Isolated networks with Source Nat service enabled",
      "name": "DefaultIsolatedNetworkOfferingWithSourceNatService",
      ...
      "serviceofferingid": "dde866be-b594-45c9-9a0f-f65b9f48ea0c",
      "serviceofferingname": "System Offering For Software Router",
}

Via the GUI, the Network Offering tab was accessed and I validated that the network offering's system offering was also being displayed correctly (as it can be seen in the Screenshots section of the message). I also validated that the link to the system offering's page was working successfully and redirecting to the correct system offering.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 8 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 16.26%. Comparing base (56dc119) to head (ce8c1df).
⚠️ Report is 47 commits behind head on 4.20.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...oudstack/api/response/NetworkOfferingResponse.java	0.00%	6 Missing ⚠️
...src/main/java/com/cloud/api/ApiResponseHelper.java	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##               4.20   #12862    +/-   ##
==========================================
  Coverage     16.25%   16.26%            
- Complexity    13425    13433     +8     
==========================================
  Files          5662     5667     +5     
  Lines        500167   500681   +514     
  Branches      60740    60801    +61     
==========================================
+ Hits          81318    81423   +105     
- Misses       409763   410151   +388     
- Partials       9086     9107    +21     

Flag	Coverage Δ
uitests	4.14% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
unittests	17.11% <0.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[weizhouapache]

@erikbocks
will the name be exposed to regular user too ?

[erikbocks]

@weizhouapache, the column will be hidden from normal users in the GUI (see link). However, the name is still exposed in the API response. Do you think we should hide it there as well?

[weizhouapache]

@weizhouapache, the column will be hidden from normal users in the GUI (see link). However, the name is still exposed in the API response. Do you think we should hide it there as well?

yes, actually I think both id and name of service offering should be hidden for non-admin users.

[erikbocks]

@weizhouapache, done.

[weizhouapache]

code lgtm

[JoaoJandre]

@blueorangutan package

[blueorangutan]

@JoaoJandre a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

[blueorangutan]

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ el10 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 18287

[weizhouapache]

I considered the UI changes again, and I think the "Domain" column can be removed.

We could add another field to the list view instead. Personally, I would prefer a field that highlights a more significant difference between network offerings, such as the Default egress policy.

[erikbocks]

@weizhouapache

I have added the Default egress policy column. I had removed the Domain column, but I reconsidered the change, and could you explain more deeply about why you think the Domain column should be removed? Thinking of it, I think that this action would make it harder to find dedicated network offerings.