Today I noticed something that I would consider to be a bug or at minimal a rather poorly implemented feature (no offense, astaro is extremely well implemented and thought out, and I bring this up only to offer what I hope is constructive feedback)
The problem is this, what creating a static mapping for the DHCP server, astrao offers to automatically create a static DNS entry for you, however this feature feels only 1/2 done, and maybe it is, this is not a feature complete beta, I understand that. The reason I say that is after that point of nice automation, you are left in the cold.
If you later change the IP address of the for the MAC address, the static mapping will be left to the old IP (I can understand the reasoning as the entry is 'static' but a simple check box to 'recreate' the static DNS entry thus removing the old entry and replacing it with the new information would be nice because it would not be unreasonable for someone to expect this to get automatically done for them after it has been automatically created.
Second, if you forget to set a comment when creating an entry, later on the listing of static entries, since host names are not displayed, it can be annoying.
I have, more then once, created an entry only a second later to realize that I either wanted to assign a different IP, or I forgot to comment it, etc... This now becomes a task of not just clicking back one tab and quickly changing things but rather is a multi-page annoyance of going and manually finding and updating the static dns and network def. entries across multiple pages.
So, while I would consider this to be a "low priority" thing, I would like to suggest...
- Check boxes on the pop up box when editing static DHCP entries to automatically update / remove and replace the related entries in static DNS / detentions. Implemented similar to the boxes when first creating them.
- To display the last known host name of entries listed in static DHCP, especially if no comment is made / or to offer the host name as a default in the comments field when creating a static mapping.
While I could see a legitimate argument against my second suggestion, I think the first one, while not critical, would be a very useful thing.
