CustomAttribute->Tag mapping should go through Policy?

[cben]

As discussed in #14436, customattribute->tag mapping ought to invoke policy, more or less as manual tagging does.
I'm trying to understand how exactly manual tagging behaves.
Searched lots of docs but didn't find details. [1] [2]

• Manual tagging causes [Un-]Tag Complete event.
  • Clearly automatic tag assignment should do this too.
• Manual tagging causes [Un-]Tag Request event. I expected a Prevent current event from proceeding action could cancel the tagging? That didn't work for me but AFAIU should (=> Opened Policy to prevent Tag/Untag does not work #15882, doing this for automatic tagging is blocked on fixing that first).
  • If we allow policy to prevent automatic tagging, will every refresh re-try the Tag Request?

(I'm not exactly implementing that yet, but I'm going to refactor tag mapping for graph refersh and want to undestand which parts will belong done in post-refresh)

@gtanzillo are you the person to ask about Policy?

cc @djberg96 @bronaghs @Ladas

[Ladas]

@cben There should be a BZ about 'Prevent current event from proceeding' not working

[cben]

@djberg96 @bronaghs I'm not sure I'll get to implement this for gaprindashvilli (UPDATE: I didn't)
I first need to get tag mapping working as now in container graph refresh (ManageIQ/manageiq-providers-kubernetes#126)

• Do you also need to implement tag mapping in graph refresh for Amazon?
• Is going through policy important for you in Amazon, for this release?

[cben]

• Policy "assign tag" action - TODO check if it's allowed, probably shouldn't be.
• Custom action "inherit parent tag" - shows read_only tags; TODO check do they work?, probably shouldn't?

[djberg96]

@cben Not sure what the priority is here. I will have to defer to @bronaghs.

[miq-bot]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not been updated for at least 6 months.

If you can still reproduce this issue on the current release or on master, please reply with all of the information you have about it in order to keep the issue open.

Thank you for all your contributions!

[JPrause]

@cben is this still a valid issue. If not can you close.
If there's no update by next week, I'll be closing this issue.

[cben]

In principle valid, but low priority enhancement, realistically won't happen.
@miq-bot add-label enhancement, control
@miq-bot close-issue

If this is to be revivid, #15882 should be resolved one way or another first.