API for vm_infras in reconfigure form

[jaisejose1123]

Related PR
ManageIQ/manageiq-api#1253

[agrare]

Confused why we're adding a new top level node when we already have Reconfigure VMs / vm_reconfigure_all https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq/blob/master/db/fixtures/miq_product_features.yml#L5949-L5973

[kbrock]

Do we need infra specific features?
Can we use 1 set of privileges for both views?

[miq-bot]

Checked commit jaisejose1123@74cd750 with ruby 2.7.8, rubocop 1.56.3, haml-lint 0.51.0, and yamllint
1 file checked, 6 offenses detected

lib/rbac/filterer.rb

• ⚠️ - Line 350, Col 9 - Lint/DuplicateBranch - Duplicate branch body detected.
• ❗ - Line 342, Col 1 - Layout/TrailingWhitespace - Trailing whitespace detected.
• ❗ - Line 347, Col 1 - Layout/TrailingWhitespace - Trailing whitespace detected.
• ❗ - Line 348, Col 25 - Style/ClassCheck - Prefer Object#kind_of? over Object#is_a?.
• ❗ - Line 350, Col 23 - Performance/RedundantEqualityComparisonBlock - Use all?(Integer) instead of block.
• ❗ - Line 350, Col 48 - Style/CaseEquality - Avoid the use of the case equality operator ===.

[kbrock]

targets should be passed in as a scope Vm.all or maybe an array of ids [1,2,3].

Don't add this here.
And to be honest, probably should not need to make changes in here unless we are not properly filtering a class.

[kbrock]

please share reason for this change.
The implications of this change will impact many many places of the application.

I do agree, that this sorting is called in a few places that I wish it were not.

The solution I find is to pass in a scope and that solves this problem.

[kbrock]

In reviewing this again, I would like to avoid all the rbac changes, and probably the feature changes.