feat(storage): add search conditions

[joseivanlopez]

Extend storage schema with more search conditions:

• Drives and MD RAIDs: by name, by size (equal, greater or less).
• Partitions: by name, by size (equal, greater or less), by partition number.

Requires yast/yast-storage-ng#1410.

[joseivanlopez]

Changelogs will be updated once the PR is approved to avoid fixing conflicts with master.

[ancorgs]

This design of Configs::Search with separate explicit attributes for name, size and partition_number doesn't look too flexible for the future. How will it work in the future to combine conditions? I mean stuff like this (not sure about the syntax yet):

{
  "partitions": [
    {
      "search": {
        "if_not_found": "create",
        "condition": {
          { "or": [
              { "number": 2 },
              { "and": [
                  { "size": { "greater": "1 MiB" } },
                  { "size": { "less": "10 MiB" } }
                ]
              }
            ]
          }
        }
      }
    }
  ] 
}

[joseivanlopez]

I did the minimal changes to Configs::Search to support the current needs. It will evolve according to what we want to offer. I think in the fututure we will have somehing like Configs::Search#condition and Configs::SearchCondition, or something similar.

[ancorgs]

One of the main features/goals of DiskAnalyzer is to cache all the intermediate and final results that are expensive (eg. need to lookup into the system, to mount something, etc.).

In other words, disk analyzers are more designed to be shared together with its devicegraph than to be created over and over.

I feel kind of uncomfortable creating instances of DiskAnalyzer for every search (or for every kind of search). Have we checked it's not a potential performance problem?

[joseivanlopez]

I haven't checked the performance. I will pass the disk analyzer to avoid some potential penalty. Anyway, it would be nice to have DiskAnalyzer#devicegraph as a public method. So we don't have to pass a devicegraph-analyzer pair.

[ancorgs]

LGTM (except, of course, the lack of a changelog).

[ancorgs]

Now that I realize, should we update the dependency on yast2-storage-ng?

[joseivanlopez]

Now that I realize, should we update the dependency on yast2-storage-ng?

Yes, it is updated, see https://github.com/agama-project/agama/pull/2338/files#diff-ceee56f39d11b19309aec78a4c4b31b91f100062d85d7548a3d1cba14972cfa2.