Bonding interfaces and "managing" slaves

Hey guys,

A very brief question/topic:

Would it not make since to “assume” that when a bond is created and the slaves are set, that this implies these are managed as well? Nowadays we have to set the slaves explicitly to “managed”, if this is forgotten, it doesn’t work (although the expectation would be that it works regardless).

This change could be done by either changing the templates, but this would probably make it look like “black magic” as it simply works without an upfront known reason (except for the magicians who look at the code)
A better way could be to, in the slaves box, propose interfaces that are available (kinda like tag-input-fields usually work these days); while, in each individual interface, “managed” would be gray-checked to indicate this is already being controlled. Hovering could explain to a user that this is managed by the bonded interface and the magic is uncovered!

Does this make sense? Or are there better solutions for this problem? I think it would lower the complexity of foreman and bonded interfaces a teeny tiny bit?

Kind regards,


I like the 2nd suggestion a lot. Allowing users to link the bond slaves to a bond makes a lot of sense.


I do not use it very often, but yes, I also like suggestion number 2.


2nd suggestion sounds very good.

1 Like

Hey guys! Thanks for the feedback! In the next couple of days, I’d like to create a few wireframes to verify the flow is right; if so I can start implementing this :slight_smile: