[BUG] The Name of the extra disk in the dashboard does not match the actual device path

[weihanglo]

Describe the bug
The Name field of extra disks does not match the actual device path on the system. This often happens by swapping the slots of disks.

To Reproduce
Steps to reproduce the behavior:

1. Prepare a harvester cluster (single node is sufficient)
2. Prepare two additional disks and format both of them.
3. Hotplug both disks and add them to the host via Harvester Dashboard ("Hosts" > "Edit Config" > "Disks")
4. Shutdown the host.
5. Swap the address and slot of the two disks in order to make their dev paths swapped
   • For libvirt environment, you can swap <address> and <target> in the XML of the disk.
6. Reboot the host

Expected behavior
The name matches the acutal device path on the system. (e.g. lsblk's output)

Possible solution

My impression is that the dashboard displays the field Name with blockdevice.spec.fileSystem.devPath. Unfortunately the value of devPath is static. Once a blockdevice is created it can never reflect the actual device path on the system.

Off the top of my head, there are some solution:

1. Find an alternative to display other than the field devPath, such as blockdevice.name. Though the name itself is meaningless to users.
2. The NDM controller provides the real device path on status.deviceStatus.devPath or somewhere else to let dashboard display.

Environment:

• Harvester ISO version: master-fd872c9-head

Additional context

This is a screenshot copied from. #1874

You can see that /dev/vdc with 29GiB is mounted at 88d81368 on the left, but in the console the disk mounted at 88d81368 with 29GiB actually has the path /dev/vdb

[harvesterhci-io-github-bot]

Pre Ready-For-Testing Checklist

• Where is the reproduce steps/test steps documented?
  The reproduce steps/test steps are at:

• [BUG] The Name of the extra disk in the dashboard does not match the actual device path #1976 (comment)

• Is there a workaround for the issue? If so, where is it documented?
  The workaround is at:

• Does the PR include the explanation for the fix or the feature?

* [ ] Does the PR include deployment change (YAML/Chart)? If so, where are the PRs for both YAML file and Chart?
The PR for the YAML change is at:
The PR for the chart change is at:

* [ ] Have the backend code been merged (harvester, harvester-installer, etc) (including backport-needed/*)?
The PR is at

* [ ] Which areas/issues this PR might have potential impacts on?
Area
Issues

* [ ] If labeled: require/HEP Has the Harvester Enhancement Proposal PR submitted?
The HEP PR is at

• If labeled: area/ui Has the UI issue filed or ready to be merged?
  The UI issue/PR is at

• HARVESTER: Fix host and disk issues dashboard#268

• If labeled: require/doc Has the necessary document PR submitted or merged?
  The documentation issue/PR is at

• If labeled: require/automation-e2e Has the end-to-end test plan been merged? Have QAs agreed on the automation test case? If only test case skeleton w/o implementation, have you created an implementation issue?
  The automation skeleton PR is at
  The automation test case PR is at
  The issue of automation test case implementation is at (bot will auto create one using the template)

• If labeled: require/integration-test Has the PR includes the integration test?
  The integration test PR is at

• If labeled: require/manual-test-plan Has the manual test plan been documented?
  The updated manual test plan is at

• If the fix introduces the code for backward compatibility Has a separate issue been filed with the label release/obsolete-compatibility?
  The compatibility issue is filed at

[harvesterhci-io-github-bot]

Automation e2e test issue: harvester/tests#288

[n313893254]

Currently implemented the first solution, The second solution will be implemented in this issue #1249

[lanfon72]

After discussed with @weihanglo, the implementation is not enough for user to add new disks. (snapshot as below)
user will be confused when they got multiple disks with same size.
so this issue be blocked by #2149, and they should be ship together.

[lanfon72]

verified along with #2149