Should RI Exchange page honor Main Header global filter? (QA 2.9 -- design question)

[cristim]

Question (QA Main Header 2.9)

Should the Inventory & Coverage > RI Exchange page honor the Main Header global Provider/Account chips?

QA filed 2.7+2.14 (Active Commitments) and 2.8+2.15 (Coverage) as bugs -- those should clearly respect the global filter. RI Exchange is more specialised (AWS-only workflow at present) and the QA tester wasn't sure whether the chip should apply.

Need product input:

• If yes: same propagation pattern as the other sub-tabs (issue tracked under separate ticket).
• If no: visually distinguish RI Exchange so it's clear the global filter doesn't apply (e.g. ghost-out the chip when on this tab, or a small "Not filtered" indicator).

Filed as type/question + status/needs-info.

Source

QA Main Header 2.9 (exploratory testing 2026-05-27).

[cristim]

Decision: RI Exchange should honor the Main Header global Provider/Account filter, consistent with the other Inventory sub-tabs (Active Commitments + Coverage, #866/#881). RI Exchange is multi-provider (AWS exchangeable RIs + Azure exchangeable reservations; GCP has no RI-exchange concept). Behavior: Provider=AWS shows AWS RIs, Provider=Azure shows Azure reservations, Provider=GCP shows a 'not available for GCP' empty state; Account filter narrows to that account; provider-aware empty states throughout; clear any in-progress exchange selection when the filter changes. Converting from question to feat.

[cristim]

Resolved by PR #906 (merged 2026-06-01). RI Exchange now honors the Main Header global filter (AWS account-scoped + fail-closed, Azure subscription-scoped, GCP shows a 'not available' empty state) -- consistent with the other Inventory sub-tabs. Auto-close didn't fire because the PR merged to feat/multicloud-web-frontend, not the default branch. Closing manually.