Removing firewalld snippet

[apinnick]

What changes are you introducing?

Removing firewalld snippet

Why are you introducing these changes? (Explanation, links to references, issues, etc.)

Snippet is only 1 sentence and unlikely to be reused.

Anything else to add? (Considerations, potential downsides, alternative solutions you have explored, etc.)

No tech review or testing required

Contributor checklists

• I am okay with my commits getting squashed when you merge this PR.
• I am familiar with the contributing guidelines.

Please cherry-pick my commits into:

• Foreman 3.16/Katello 4.18 (Satellite 6.18)
• Foreman 3.15/Katello 4.17
• Foreman 3.14/Katello 4.16 (Satellite 6.17; orcharhino 7.4)
• Foreman 3.13/Katello 4.15 (EL9 only)
• Foreman 3.12/Katello 4.14 (Satellite 6.16; orcharhino 7.2 on EL9 only; orcharhino 7.3)
• Foreman 3.11/Katello 4.13 (orcharhino 6.11 on EL8 only; orcharhino 7.0 on EL8+EL9; orcharhino 7.1 with Leapp)
• Foreman 3.10/Katello 4.12
• Foreman 3.9/Katello 4.11 (Satellite 6.15; orcharhino 6.8/6.9/6.10)
• We do not accept PRs for Foreman older than 3.9.

Review checklists

Tech review (performed by an Engineer who did not author the PR; can be skipped if tech review is unnecessary):

• The PR documents a recommended, user-friendly path.
• The PR removes steps that have been made unnecessary or obsolete.
• Any steps introduced or updated in the PR have been tested to confirm that they lead to the documented end result.

Style review (by a Technical Writer who did not author the PR):

• The PR conforms with the team's style guidelines.
• The PR introduces documentation that describes a user story rather than a product feature.

[github-actions]

The PR preview for 504cb23 is available at theforeman-foreman-documentation-preview-pr-4252.surge.sh

No diff compared to the current base

show diff

[maximiliankolb]

style-wise LGTM, but seeing that the snippet is used fived times proves that is is being reused.

I am OK either way.

[aneta-petrova]

This change is already part of #4210 where it's integrated into the review of our firewall procedures. Please don't merge this.

[aneta-petrova]

Snippet is only 1 sentence and unlikely to be reused.

As Maximilian already pointed out, the snippet is actually reused multiple times so I admit I don't understand this statement.

In #4210, I'm removing the snippet file while also re-evaluating whether the information it contains is useful in some of the procedures. In the procedures where I don't think it is, I propose to remove it entirely. That PR is available for feedback and a conversation over the future of the snippet.

[apinnick]

I didn't express myself very clearly. This snippet is being reused. I would say this is an example of a 'frivolous snippet.

A snippet's usefulness is questionable when the content is a single step or sentence, unless the wording must be extremely accurate (example: legal note). If we create snippets for every possible text that might be reused, we end up with greater maintenance problems in the long run:

1. Our files become harder to read because the text is not part of the file.
2. New writers are unlikely to check for a snippet for a single sentence or step.

In my experience, snippets are useful for complex content (like config files), which should be maintained in only one place, and for legal notices (technology preview), where the wording must be uniform and easy to update.

Since there is another PR in progress on firewall requirements, I will close this PR.