OSAC-2540: Update DiskImage PRD for shared Metadata fields

[slintes]

Summary

Updates the DiskImage PRD to use shared Metadata display_name and description fields from OSAC-2921 instead of DiskImage-specific title and description fields.

OSAC-2808

Changes

• Removed title (required) and description (optional) from DiskImage-specific metadata — now inherited from shared Metadata
• User stories updated: "title" → "display name"
• Added OSAC-2921 as a dependency
• Updated date to reflect revision

Related

• Depends on OSAC-2921: Add standardized display_name and description fields to resource Metadata
• Original PRD merged in PR OSAC-2540: PRD: DiskImage resource for disk image metadata management #120

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Updated DiskImage requirements to use shared metadata fields: display name and description.
  • Clarified that icons remain optional, while guest OS family and architecture are required.
  • Revised administrator and tenant user stories to reflect the updated display name terminology.
  • Updated dependency and provenance details in the product requirements documentation.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@slintes: This pull request references OSAC-2540 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the feature to target the "5.0.0" version, but no target version was set.

Details

In response to this:

Summary

Updates the DiskImage PRD to use shared Metadata display_name and description fields from OSAC-2921 instead of DiskImage-specific title and description fields.

Changes

• Removed title (required) and description (optional) from DiskImage-specific metadata — now inherited from shared Metadata
• User stories updated: "title" → "display name"
• Added OSAC-2921 as a dependency
• Updated date to reflect revision

Related

• Depends on OSAC-2921: Add standardized display_name and description fields to resource Metadata
• Original PRD merged in PR OSAC-2540: PRD: DiskImage resource for disk image metadata management #120

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The PRD updates DiskImage metadata from resource-specific title and description fields to shared Metadata display name and description fields, revises related user stories, adds the OSAC-2921 dependency, and updates document context.

Changes

DiskImage metadata contract

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Shared Metadata contract and usage enhancements/disk-image-OSAC-2540/prd.md	DiskImage metadata now uses shared display name and description fields, with icon optional and guest OS family and architecture required. Cloud Provider Admin and Tenant User stories use the updated terminology, and OSAC-2921 is listed as a dependency.
PRD context and provenance enhancements/disk-image-OSAC-2540/prd.md	The document date and provenance block were updated for the revised workflow context.

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~3 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• osac-project/enhancement-proposals#120: Updates the same DiskImage PRD’s metadata contract and builds on its earlier metadata definitions.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 11

✅ Passed checks (11 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
No-Hardcoded-Secrets	✅ Passed	Only a PRD markdown file changed; secret-pattern scan found no API keys, tokens, passwords, private keys, or credentialed URLs.
No-Weak-Crypto	✅ Passed	PR only updates a PRD markdown file and contains no weak-crypto code, algorithms, or secret comparisons.
No-Injection-Vectors	✅ Passed	Only a PRD markdown file changed; no code paths or injection-prone patterns were added.
Container-Privileges	✅ Passed	PR changes only touch a markdown PRD; no container/K8s manifests or privilege flags were added.
No-Sensitive-Data-In-Logs	✅ Passed	Only a PRD markdown file changed; it contains no logging code or sensitive-data patterns.
Ai-Attribution	✅ Passed	PASS: HEAD commit includes 'Assisted-by: Claude Code' and no Co-Authored-By AI trailer was found.
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly matches the main change: updating the DiskImage PRD for shared Metadata fields.

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[github-actions]

AI EP Review: EP-136

Score: 9/10 | Verdict: PASS

Criterion	Score	Notes
What	2/2	Clear problem statement naming 5 specific user pain points (no discoverability, no metadata, no governance, raw OCI URLs, inconsistent OS type). All 4 OSAC personas addressed: Cloud Provider Admin (9 stories), Tenant Admin (5 stories), Tenant User (7 stories), Cloud Infrastructure Admin explicitly marked as unaffected. VMaaS service clearly declared. In Scope and Out of Scope are well-defined with 13 concrete in-scope items and 13 explicit exclusions. Each user story follows the 'As a ...' forma
Why	1/2	The Problem Statement names concrete pain points — users must know exact OCI image references, no curated image list, no access control, OS type inconsistency — but stops short of articulating business impact or strategic consequence. It describes gaps without stating what happens if they persist (e.g., 'blocks VMaaS adoption' or 'prevents tenant self-service'). Solid gap description, but lacks the causal chain to a business outcome that would earn a 2.
How	2/2	The approach is specific and measurable. Every In Scope item describes a user-observable outcome: CRUD via UI/CLI/API, two-tier visibility model, lifecycle states (deprecation/obsolescence/reactivation), deletion protection, UI views. No design leakage — no controllers, reconcilers, playbooks, or internal conditions named. The closest to implementation detail is 'source_type + source_ref' which are user-facing API fields. User stories double as testable acceptance criteria — each can be verified
Task	2/2	This is a clear product feature enhancement: a new DiskImage API resource with CRUD operations, multi-tenant visibility, lifecycle management, UI integration, and changes to ComputeInstance/Template/CatalogItem references. Not a bug fix, task, or documentation-only change.
Size	2/2	Well-scoped and tightly coupled. All capabilities (CRUD, visibility, lifecycle, references, deletion protection, UI) are facets of a single DiskImage resource. You cannot ship visibility without CRUD, lifecycle without the resource, or ComputeInstance references without DiskImage existing. Out of Scope explicitly defers image upload, caching, scanning, versioning, and BareMetalInstance integration. The dependency on OSAC-2921 (shared Metadata) is now explicitly declared in the diff.

Verdict: Strong PRD with clear user-facing outcomes, comprehensive persona coverage, and well-scoped capabilities — held back slightly by a problem statement that describes gaps without articulating business impact.

Feedback: Add one sentence to the Problem Statement that ties the current gaps to a business consequence — e.g., 'Without curated images, tenant self-service VM creation requires registry expertise, reducing VMaaS adoption to users with container tooling knowledge.' This converts the gap description into a causal chain that justifies prioritization. The terminology update to 'display name' and the explicit OSAC-2921 dependency are good improvements that strengthen cross-feature consistency.

Critical (0)

None.

Important (1)

1. Problem Statement describes 5 user pain points but never states the business consequence of not addressing them. Compare calibration Y=2: 'blocks CaaS adoption for any tenant with stateful workloads.' Add a sentence connecting the gaps to VMaaS adoption, tenant self-service, or platform governance goals.

Suggestions (2)

1. Consider adding an explicit 'Not affected' note for E2E Testing, Networking, Storage, and Installation dimensions in the Out of Scope section, similar to how Cloud Infrastructure Admin is marked 'Not affected' in User Stories — this anticipates reviewer questions about dimension coverage.
2. The Assumptions section could note that the OSAC-2921 shared Metadata dependency must land before or alongside DiskImage, since the diff adds this dependency but doesn't state sequencing risk.

---

Review cost

Model: claude-opus-4-6
Cost: $0.6761
Tokens: 14 in / 6.8k out
Cache: 698.4k read
Active time: 2m 35s
API calls: 0

[ygalblum]

/approve
/lgtm

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: slintes, ygalblum

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [ygalblum]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment