OSAC-1110: UI design for storage tier management - #183
Merged
openshift-merge-bot[bot] merged 9 commits intoAug 4, 2026
Merged
openshift-merge-bot[bot] merged 9 commits into
openshift-merge-bot[bot] merged 9 commits into
Conversation
Specifies the osac-ui implementation for StorageTier (OSAC-1110) admin management: a single "Storage tiers" admin page for composing named tier offerings from registered StorageBackend (OSAC-1111) infrastructure. StorageBackend gets no admin UI of its own -- neither PRD states a UI requirement, and it is consumed read-only, mirroring how NetworkClass is already handled with zero CRUD UI in osac-ui. Assisted-by: Claude Code <noreply@anthropic.com> Signed-off-by: Elay Aharoni <elayaha@gmail.com>
|
@ElayAharoni: This pull request references OSAC-1110 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 epic to target the "5.0.0" version, but no target version was set. DetailsIn response to this:
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. |
|
Note Reviews pausedIt looks like this branch is under active development. To avoid overwhelming you with review comments due to an influx of new commits, CodeRabbit has automatically paused this review. You can configure this behavior by changing the Use the following commands to manage reviews:
Use the checkboxes below for quick actions:
WalkthroughThe proposal updates the ChangesStorage administration UI
Estimated code review effort: 2 (Simple) | ~10 minutes Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers: 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 11✅ Passed checks (11 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
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. Comment |
Closed
2 tasks
Both StorageBackend (PR #728) and StorageTier (PR #832, restructured by #887) merged in fulfillment-service weeks before this design was drafted -- corrects the design's flat-field assumption to the actual spec/status shape, resolves the DNS-label-validation open question by reading the real server validation code (confirmed: not enforced server-side), clarifies that the tenant-reference-blocks-delete path is still genuinely deferred to OSAC-23, and notes the already-existing osac CLI support for StorageBackend registration. No remaining external blocker -- fulfillment-service protos and osac-ui's generated types both already exist. Assisted-by: Claude Code <noreply@anthropic.com> Signed-off-by: Elay Aharoni <elayaha@gmail.com>
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 7
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@enhancements/OSAC-1110-storage-tier/ui-design.md`:
- Around line 256-258: Update the Version Skew Strategy to define the minimum
supported fulfillment-service version, or specify a capability gate covering
READY filtering, the one-backend constraint, field-mask semantics, and error
codes. Document and test the supported UI/service version skew matrix rather
than relying solely on protobuf additive compatibility.
- Around line 179-182: Add shared RFC 1035 DNS-label validation to the
server-side CreateStorageTier and UpdateStorageTier RPC handling, rejecting
invalid tier names while preserving the existing client-side validation. Update
the relevant server validation path, such as validateStorageTierCreate and its
update equivalent, and add API-level negative tests covering invalid names
through both RPCs.
- Line 153: Update the data-model code fence in the markdown document to specify
its language, using text or the exact syntax after the opening fence so
markdownlint no longer reports MD040.
- Around line 137-139: Update the StorageTierCreateModal design and acceptance
criteria to address FR-3: either define explicit release acceptance criteria
documenting the v0.1 single-backend limitation and deviation, or expand the
backend picker and submit flow to support one or more backend associations. Keep
the request payload’s backend association structure aligned with the selected
scope and update the related validation expectations.
- Around line 137-139: Standardize the storage-tier quota contract on the PRD’s
byte-based field by replacing quotaGib with the chosen byte-valued
BackendAssociation field across the generated proto, server validation/API
handling, StorageTierCreateModal payload, UI documentation, and affected tests.
Update labels, validation, serialization, and assertions consistently while
preserving positive-integer validation and the existing single-backend
submission shape.
- Around line 115-116: The useUpdateStorageTier() design must not send indexed
spec.backends[0].* paths in update_mask. For the v0.1 single-backend constraint,
update the request to send the complete spec.backends value with a valid
update_mask path such as spec.backends, or provide verified server-side support
and tests for indexed paths before using them.
- Around line 126-129: Update the navRowsForRole entry and matching AppShell
route to allow only providerAdmin, removing tenantAdmin unless the OPA policy
explicitly defines it as an equivalent platform role. Adjust the role-matrix
tests to verify tenantAdmin is denied and providerAdmin retains access.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Repository: osac-project/coderabbit/.coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: bb69bb59-0c75-41ee-beeb-d0132797287d
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
enhancements/OSAC-1110-storage-tier/ui-design.md
ElayAharoni
requested review from
akshaynadkarni,
batzionb,
rawagner and
ronniel1
and removed request for
mhrivnak and
trewest
August 3, 2026 10:50
ronniel1
reviewed
Aug 3, 2026
rgolangh
reviewed
Aug 3, 2026
|
|
||
| ## Motivation | ||
|
|
||
| OSAC has no API-managed inventory of storage tier offerings today: tier configuration lives in the `STORAGE_TIERS` environment variable plus Kubernetes label conventions, invisible to the OSAC API and to any UI. `StorageTier` (this EP) replaces that with a DB-backed private gRPC resource binding a named offering to a registered `StorageBackend` with QoS properties. `osac-ui` is the only *graphical* interface Cloud Provider Admins have to manage this data — neither `StorageTier` nor `StorageBackend` (OSAC-1111) has a public API, though both already have private `osac` CLI support (`osac create/describe storagetier`, `osac create/describe storagebackend`, confirmed merged in `fulfillment-service`). |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Worth mentioning that storage tiers and backends are merged and available in the private api , and that this is PR [1] will wire the storagetier info into AAP templates.
[1] https://github.com/osac-project/osac-operator/pull/375/changes - this change will get ported to the mono-repo.
… primitive - StorageTierStateLabel now wraps the shared ResourceStatusLabel/StatusKind primitive (ACTIVE -> ready, UNSPECIFIED -> unspecified) instead of a standalone component, per user direction. - Fix invalid FieldMask usage: standard protobuf FieldMask has no syntax for indexed repeated-element paths (spec.backends[0].*) -- corrected to submitting the complete spec.backends array with update_mask: ["spec.backends"]. - Restrict the "Storage tiers" nav entry and route to providerAdmin only; tenantAdmin is a tenant-scoped role in osac-ui's role model and has no legitimate access to a platform-only resource like StorageTier. - Add a minimum-fulfillment-service-version note to Version Skew Strategy, since additive proto compatibility doesn't guarantee the specific validation/filter/error-code behaviors this design depends on. - Flag missing server-side DNS-label validation as a backend follow-up (out of this UI design's scope) rather than silently accepting the gap. - Acknowledge the v0.1 single-backend UI as a documented deviation from OSAC-1110 FR-3's "one or more backends" language; whether to build multi-select ahead of the server is left open pending reviewer discussion. - Fix markdownlint MD040 (unlabeled code fence). Assisted-by: Claude Code <noreply@anthropic.com> Signed-off-by: Elay Aharoni <elayaha@gmail.com>
Per PR review consensus (ronniel1/rgolangh confirming multiple backends
per tier is the intended design, backed by storage_tier_type.pb.go's
repeated Backends field), replace the single-select backend picker
with a repeatable BackendAssociationsArrayField in both Create and Edit
forms, following the existing ClusterNodeSetsArrayField.tsx pattern
(hand-rolled setFieldValue array manipulation, FormFieldGroup rows,
add/remove buttons, rowId-based keying) -- no other repeatable-array
pattern exists in osac-ui to diverge from.
This targets the full OSAC-1110 FR-3 requirement ("one or more backend
associations"), ahead of the server: private_storage_tiers_server.go's
validateBackends still rejects more than one entry as of this commit.
Documented as an explicit, expected interim gap (Risks and Mitigations,
new Failure Handling row) rather than silently building past it.
Also updates: List page BACKENDS/PROTOCOL(S) columns to show all
associations per tier, duplicate-backend-across-rows validation, and
corresponding Alternatives/Test Plan sections.
Assisted-by: Claude Code <noreply@anthropic.com>
Signed-off-by: Elay Aharoni <elayaha@gmail.com>
- Fix stale OSAC-23 references (closed) -> OSAC-2872 (Storage Control Plane, the live epic that owns tenant-to-tier assignment and the deferred referential-integrity trigger). - Fix the mermaid sequence diagram, which wasn't rendering on GitHub -- adopted the plain-text-safe syntax from review (no colons/braces/ parens inside arrow messages). - Incorporate OSAC-3014 (Public Storage Tier API): a tenant-facing Get/List API for StorageTier is planned separately to support VMaaS disk-tier selection (OSAC-1710). Clarified throughout that this design's "no public API" framing is current-state, not permanent, and that a future public surface is explicitly out of this design's scope rather than contradicting it. - Clarify two wording nits: "hand-crafting API requests" and the UI-agnostic meaning of "catalog" in this document. - Add Open Questions with one entry: whether StorageBackend should also get an admin UI, per OSAC-1111 design owner's PR feedback that the real admin workflow is register-backend-then-compose-tier and a Tier-only UI is incomplete. Cross-referenced from the relevant Non-Goals/Alternatives/Drawbacks entries as contested, not settled. Assisted-by: Claude Code <noreply@anthropic.com> Signed-off-by: Elay Aharoni <elayaha@gmail.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
Caution
Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.
⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)
enhancements/OSAC-1110-storage-tier/ui-design.md (1)
112-115: 🗄️ Data Integrity & Integration | 🟠 Major | 🏗️ Heavy liftDefine bounded pagination for the tier list.
Line [112] says that the list page renders every tier without pagination, although the API contract supports
offsetandlimit. A default or maximum service limit can hide tiers. Fetching all tiers without a bound can also create an unbounded request and render cost. Use page controls or fetch all pages with an explicit bound, and test a result set larger than one service page.🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@enhancements/OSAC-1110-storage-tier/ui-design.md` around lines 112 - 115, Update the storage-tier list flow around usePrivateStorageTiers(params) so it does not render an unbounded, single-page result. Add page controls or bounded multi-page fetching with an explicit maximum, and ensure tiers beyond one service page remain handled according to that bound. Add coverage using a result set larger than one service page.
♻️ Duplicate comments (1)
enhancements/OSAC-1110-storage-tier/ui-design.md (1)
194-195: 🗄️ Data Integrity & Integration | 🟠 Major | 🏗️ Heavy liftEnforce the DNS-label rule in the service.
Line [194] makes client validation the only guard. CLI and direct private API callers can persist invalid names, which can later break StorageClass generation. Add the same RFC 1035 validation to
CreateStorageTierandUpdateStorageTier, with API-level negative tests. Keep client validation for early feedback.🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@enhancements/OSAC-1110-storage-tier/ui-design.md` around lines 194 - 195, Add RFC 1035 DNS-label validation to the service-layer CreateStorageTier and UpdateStorageTier handlers, rejecting invalid metadata.name values before persistence while retaining the existing client-side validation. Reuse the project’s established DNS-label validator if available, and add API-level negative tests covering invalid names for both operations.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@enhancements/OSAC-1110-storage-tier/ui-design.md`:
- Around line 264-269: Add coverage for successful create and update operations
using two backend associations, asserting the complete ordered backend array is
preserved. Add a component or transport contract test and, behind the
fulfillment-service capability gate, an integration or E2E case; retain the
existing interim multi-backend INVALID_ARGUMENT rejection test.
- Line 137: Replace quotaGib with the PRD-aligned quota field and byte unit
throughout StorageTierCreateModal, its submitted payload, generated types,
fulfillment-service contract, validation, and tests. Ensure validation and UI
labels/input handling represent bytes consistently, and update assertions and
fixtures to use the standardized field without changing other
backend-association behavior.
---
Outside diff comments:
In `@enhancements/OSAC-1110-storage-tier/ui-design.md`:
- Around line 112-115: Update the storage-tier list flow around
usePrivateStorageTiers(params) so it does not render an unbounded, single-page
result. Add page controls or bounded multi-page fetching with an explicit
maximum, and ensure tiers beyond one service page remain handled according to
that bound. Add coverage using a result set larger than one service page.
---
Duplicate comments:
In `@enhancements/OSAC-1110-storage-tier/ui-design.md`:
- Around line 194-195: Add RFC 1035 DNS-label validation to the service-layer
CreateStorageTier and UpdateStorageTier handlers, rejecting invalid
metadata.name values before persistence while retaining the existing client-side
validation. Reuse the project’s established DNS-label validator if available,
and add API-level negative tests covering invalid names for both operations.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Repository: osac-project/coderabbit/.coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: 59c04521-a2ae-4480-9769-af54d141c74f
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
enhancements/OSAC-1110-storage-tier/ui-design.md
|
|
||
| #### 4. Create Form | ||
|
|
||
| A modal (`StorageTierCreateModal`) modeled on `osac-ui`'s existing `VirtualNetworkCreateModal` (Formik + Yup, single mutation on submit): `name` (DNS-label validated, §8), `description` (optional), and a repeatable **backend associations** section — one or more rows, each with `backend` (select, populated from `usePrivateStorageBackends({ filter: STORAGE_BACKEND_READY_LIST_FILTER })`), `protocol` (`NFS`/`BLOCK`), `maxReadBandwidthMbs` / `maxWriteBandwidthMbs` / `quotaGib` (positive-integer numeric fields), and `encryptionEnabled` (checkbox). Submits `{ metadata: { name }, spec: { description, backends: [{ backendId, protocol, maxReadBandwidthMbs, maxWriteBandwidthMbs, quotaGib, encryptionEnabled }, ...] } }` — one array entry per row. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🗄️ Data Integrity & Integration | 🟠 Major | 🏗️ Heavy lift
Align quota with the PRD byte contract.
Line [137] uses quotaGib, while enhancements/OSAC-1110-storage-tier/prd.md defines quota in bytes. Standardize the field name and unit across the UI payload, generated types, fulfillment-service contract, validation, and tests. Otherwise the service can reject the field or interpret values with a factor-of-2³⁰ difference.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@enhancements/OSAC-1110-storage-tier/ui-design.md` at line 137, Replace
quotaGib with the PRD-aligned quota field and byte unit throughout
StorageTierCreateModal, its submitted payload, generated types,
fulfillment-service contract, validation, and tests. Ensure validation and UI
labels/input handling represent bytes consistently, and update assertions and
fixtures to use the standardized field without changing other
backend-association behavior.
Comment on lines
+264
to
+269
| - Create form: DNS-label and positive-integer validation, backend picker excludes non-`READY` backends, `ALREADY_EXISTS`/`NOT_FOUND`/multi-backend `INVALID_ARGUMENT` error surfacing. | ||
| - `BackendAssociationsArrayField`: adding a row appends an empty one with a fresh `rowId`; removing a row is unavailable on the first row and removes any other row without affecting sibling rows' state (verifying `rowId`-based keying, not index-based, avoids cross-row state bleed); a backend already selected in one row is excluded from every other row's options; array-level Yup validation rejects zero rows and duplicate `backendId`s. | ||
| - Edit form: prefill renders one row per existing `spec.backends` entry, `name` rendered disabled, each row's backend picker includes that row's non-`READY` currently-assigned backend, QoS-change alert triggers correctly, stale-version conflict handling, adding/removing rows on an existing tier submits the complete updated array. | ||
|
|
||
| **E2E tests** (owned by QE, authored in `osac-test-infra` via the `/e2e` workflow — `osac-ui` has no e2e tests of its own): | ||
| - Full create → list → edit → delete flow against a real (or kind-deployed) fulfillment-service, including duplicate-name rejection and delete-blocked-by-tenant-reference. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🗄️ Data Integrity & Integration | 🔵 Trivial | 🏗️ Heavy lift
Add a successful multi-backend contract test.
The test plan covers duplicate exclusion and the interim INVALID_ARGUMENT, but it does not verify successful create or update with two backend associations. Add a component or transport test for the complete ordered array, plus an integration or E2E case behind the fulfillment-service capability gate. Keep the interim rejection test.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@enhancements/OSAC-1110-storage-tier/ui-design.md` around lines 264 - 269, Add
coverage for successful create and update operations using two backend
associations, asserting the complete ordered backend array is preserved. Add a
component or transport contract test and, behind the fulfillment-service
capability gate, an integration or E2E case; retain the existing interim
multi-backend INVALID_ARGUMENT rejection test.
rawagner
reviewed
Aug 4, 2026
rawagner
reviewed
Aug 4, 2026
Reverses the earlier Tier-only scoping (which treated StorageBackend as read-only support data, like NetworkClass). The OSAC-1111 design owner confirmed in review that the real Cloud Provider Admin workflow is incomplete without backend registration, editing, and deletion being reachable through the same UI: register a StorageBackend first, then compose StorageTiers on top of it. This UI now builds full CRUD for both resources under a combined "Storage" admin section.
…r review Verified rawagner's review comments against the current osac-ui codebase (this branch was ~30 commits behind origin/main and missing the recent UserRole/Tenant-admin-nav work): - No per-route role guard exists anywhere in osac-ui; /admin/tenants/* is registered unconditionally, gated only by hiding the nav entry. Removed the route-level guard this design had proposed and rewrote Navigation and Routing, RBAC/Tenancy, and Security Considerations to match, extending the live nav-administration section instead of "reintroducing removed code." - Replaced the stale providerAdmin/tenantAdmin/tenantUser role model throughout with the current, real UserRole type. - Every create flow built since the original Networking feature is a full page, not a modal (VmCreatePage, ClusterCreatePage, BareMetalCreatePage, TenantCreatePage). Converted the Backend/Tier Create and Edit forms from modals to pages to match. - The Tiers list page's backend-name lookup now scopes its List call to referenced IDs via a new CEL filter instead of fetching every registered backend; flagged the Create/Edit forms' backend picker as inheriting an app-wide unpaginated-List limitation, not unique to this design. Also applied CodeRabbit's outstanding "add a successful multi-backend contract test" finding to the Test Plan.
…sion Storage-scope call (2026-08-04) confirmed: - CSP admin manages both StorageBackend and StorageTier via UI (already reflected in this design). - spec.backends stays list-shaped in the data model and API payload, but the UI should only let the admin choose one backend per tier for now, matching the server's current single-backend restriction rather than building ahead of it. Replaced the repeatable BackendAssociationsArrayField component with direct backends[0].* field bindings, keeping the Formik state and submitted payload list-shaped for a UI-only migration path when multi-select is eventually prioritized. - This phase covers CSP admin only; tenant consumption of storage tiers (OSAC-1710/OSAC-3014) is explicitly a later phase. - Tenants must remain completely unaware of the StorageBackend concept — only StorageTier. Recorded as a binding constraint on OSAC-3014's future public StorageTier API (must never expose spec.backends/backendId to tenants), and folded into Motivation and Security Considerations.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@enhancements/OSAC-1110-storage-tier/ui-design.md`:
- Line 191: Define the UpdateStorageBackend credential semantics for
spec.credentials so blank fields preserve existing values or, alternatively,
require both username and password whenever credentials are changed. Update the
relevant update-handler or service logic and add tests covering username-only,
password-only, both fields, and blank credential submissions, while preserving
the documented edit behavior.
🪄 Autofix
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Repository: osac-project/coderabbit/.coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: c0a21eb9-3b86-4d1b-abca-e48527365963
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
enhancements/OSAC-1110-storage-tier/ui-design.md
CodeRabbit flagged that blank username/password on the Backend edit form was documented as independently optional (blank = unchanged), but UpdateStorageBackend's update_mask addresses spec.credentials as a whole nested message, not its individual leaf fields -- so a username-only or password-only submission had undefined behavior. Resolved by treating credentials.username/credentials.password as an all-or-nothing pair on edit: both blank omits spec.credentials from the payload entirely (unchanged), both filled submits a complete replacement object, and filling in only one is rejected client-side before submission. This matches the same whole-value-under-the-mask convention already used for spec.backends elsewhere in this design.
akshaynadkarni
approved these changes
Aug 4, 2026
akshaynadkarni
left a comment
akshaynadkarni
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Left a couple of comments. Nothing to block the PR. PTAL.
Overall LGTM.
Contributor
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: akshaynadkarni, ElayAharoni The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
1 task done
openshift-merge-bot Bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 5, 2026
…llowups OSAC-1110: storage UI design doc follow-ups (post-#183)
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
6 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
enhancements/OSAC-1110-storage-tier/ui-design.md: the osac-ui implementation design forStorageTier(OSAC-1110) admin management, following this repo's existingui-design.mdcompanion-file convention (seeOSAC-1002-catalog-items/ui-design.md,OSAC-1030-organizations/ui-design.md).StorageBackend(OSAC-1111) gets no admin UI of its own in this design — neither PRD states a UI requirement, and it's consumed read-only (backend picker, name lookup), mirroring howNetworkClassis already handled with zero CRUD UI in osac-ui today.StorageTier.metadata.name.Context
StorageBackendnorStorageTierhas merged in fulfillment-service yet; bothdesign.mddocs are treated as a fixed contract. This UI work is blocked on that merge + apnpm gen-typesrun in osac-ui, and is submitted now as a design-only doc for review.Test plan
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Documentation