Use more consistent terminology in projects admin UI

What does this MR do?

I was having trouble reconciling what I was seeing in GitLab Rails UI and what I was seeing in the praefect tooling. Having to translate between the two places makes it harder to understand how it fits together.

So I've harmonized the terminology in the UI with what you'll find in the documentation (both for GitLab Rails and for gitaly project). I've also made the description of the relative path much more verbose to help folks understand how it relates to the virtual storage.

• Before:

  

• After:

  

Author's checklist

• Optional. Consider taking the GitLab Technical Writing Fundamentals course.
• Follow the:
  • Documentation process.
  • Documentation guidelines.
  • Style Guide.
• If you're adding or changing the main heading of the page (H1), ensure that the product tier badge is added.
• If you are a GitLab team member, request a review based on:
  • The documentation page's metadata.
  • The associated Technical Writer.

If you are a GitLab team member and only adding documentation, do not add any of the following labels:

• ~"frontend"
• ~"backend"
• ~"type::bug"
• ~"database"

These labels cause the MR to be added to code verification QA issues.

Reviewer's checklist

Documentation-related MRs should be reviewed by a Technical Writer for a non-blocking review, based on Documentation Guidelines and the Style Guide.

If you aren't sure which tech writer to ask, use roulette or ask in the #docs Slack channel.

• If the content requires it, ensure the information is reviewed by a subject matter expert.
• Technical writer review items:
  • Ensure docs metadata is present and up-to-date.
  • Ensure the appropriate labels are added to this MR.
  • Ensure a release milestone is set.
  • If relevant to this MR, ensure content topic type principles are in use, including:
    • The headings should be something you'd do a Google search for. Instead of Default behavior, say something like Default behavior when you close an issue.
    • The headings (other than the page title) should be active. Instead of Configuring GDK, say something like Configure GDK.
    • Any task steps should be written as a numbered list.
    • If the content still needs to be edited for topic types, you can create a follow-up issue with the docs-technical-debt label.
• Review by assigned maintainer, who can always request/require the reviews above. Maintainer's review can occur before or after a technical writer review.

changed milestone to %16.3

added docsimprovement documentation maintenancerefactor typemaintenance labels

assigned to @eread

added backend frontend labels

	1 Warning
	b50fca3b: Commits that change 30 or more lines across at least 3 files should describe these changes in the commit body. For more information, take a look at our Commit message guidelines.

	1 Message
	This merge request adds or changes documentation files. A review from the Technical Writing team before you merge is recommended. Reviews can happen after you merge.

Documentation review

The following files require a review from a technical writer:

• doc/administration/geo/disaster_recovery/background_verification.md (Link to current live version)
• doc/administration/gitaly/praefect.md (Link to current live version)
• doc/administration/repository_storage_types.md (Link to current live version)
• doc/administration/server_hooks.md (Link to current live version)
• doc/development/documentation/styleguide/word_list.md (Link to current live version)
• doc/user/project/issues/design_management.md (Link to current live version)

The review does not need to block merging this merge request. See the:

• Metadata for the *.md files that you've changed. The first few lines of each *.md file identify the stage and group most closely associated with your docs change.
• The Technical Writer assigned for that stage and group.
• Documentation workflows for information on when to assign a merge request for review.

Reviewer roulette

Changes that require review have been detected!

Please refer to the table below for assigning reviewers and maintainers suggested by Danger in the specified category:

Category	Reviewer	Maintainer
backend	Malcolm Locke (@mallocke) (UTC+12, 2 hours ahead of @eread)	Douglas Barbosa Alexandre (@dbalexandre) (UTC+0, 10 hours behind @eread)
frontend	Martin Cavoj (@mcavoj) (UTC+2, 8 hours behind @eread)	Alexander Turinske (@aturinske) (UTC-5, 15 hours behind @eread)

To spread load more evenly across eligible reviewers, Danger has picked a candidate for each review slot, based on their timezone. Feel free to override these selections if you think someone else would be better-suited or use the GitLab Review Workload Dashboard to find other available reviewers.

To read more on how to use the reviewer roulette, please take a look at the Engineering workflow and code review guidelines. Please consider assigning a reviewer or maintainer who is a domain expert in the area of the merge request.

Once you've decided who will review this merge request, assign them as a reviewer! Danger does not automatically notify them for you.

If needed, you can retry the danger-review job that generated this comment.

Generated by Danger

changed the description

Allure report

allure-report-publisher generated test report!

e2e-test-on-gdk: test report for b50fca3b

expand test summary

+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                          suites summary                          |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
|             | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | total | result |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Create      | 46     | 0      | 1       | 2     | 47    | ❗     |
| Plan        | 47     | 0      | 0       | 0     | 47    | ✅     |
| Manage      | 12     | 0      | 1       | 3     | 13    | ❗     |
| Data Stores | 20     | 0      | 0       | 0     | 20    | ✅     |
| Govern      | 34     | 0      | 0       | 1     | 34    | ❗     |
| Verify      | 8      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 8     | ✅     |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Total       | 167    | 0      | 2       | 6     | 169   | ❗     |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+

e2e-package-and-test: test report for 374c01af

expand test summary

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                            suites summary                             |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
|                  | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | total | result |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Create           | 559    | 0      | 70      | 0     | 629   | ✅     |
| Systems          | 8      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 8     | ✅     |
| Govern           | 4      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 4     | ✅     |
| Plan             | 8      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 8     | ✅     |
| Manage           | 2      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 2     | ✅     |
| Package          | 0      | 0      | 2       | 0     | 2     | ➖     |
| Data Stores      | 4      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 4     | ✅     |
| Monitor          | 8      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 8     | ✅     |
| Framework sanity | 0      | 0      | 2       | 0     | 2     | ➖     |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Total            | 593    | 0      | 74      | 0     | 667   | ✅     |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+

added devopssystems groupgitaly labels

added sectioncore platform label

@samihiltunen Could you review from a groupgitaly perspective?

@dskim_gitlab Could you review as the nominated backend maintainer?

@mrincon Could you review as the nominated frontend maintainer?

@lciutacu Could you review the docs change?

requested review from @samihiltunen, @dskim_gitlab, @mrincon, and @lciutacu

approved this merge request

@eread backend LGTM

@dskim_gitlab, thanks for approving this merge request.

This is the first time the merge request is approved. To ensure full test coverage, a new pipeline will be started shortly.

For more info, please refer to the following links:

• rspec predictive jobs
• jest predictive jobs
• merging a merge request.

added pipeline:mr-approved label

removed review request for @dskim_gitlab

@eread Some end-to-end (E2E) tests have been selected based on the stage label on this MR.

Please start the trigger-omnibus-and-follow-up-e2e job in the qa stage and ensure the tests in follow-up-e2e:package-and-test-ee pipeline are passing before this MR is merged. (The E2E test pipeline is computationally intensive and we cannot afford running it automatically for all pushes/rebases. Therefore, this job must be triggered manually after significant changes at least once.)

If you would like to run all E2E tests, please apply the pipeline:run-all-e2e label and trigger a new pipeline. This will run all tests in e2e:package-and-test pipeline.

The E2E test jobs are allowed to fail due to flakiness. For the list of known failures please refer to the latest pipeline triage issue.

Once done, please apply the emoji on this comment.

For any questions or help in reviewing the E2E test results, please reach out on the internal #quality Slack channel.