Skip to content

Extend Preferred storage pool setting to cluster and account scope - #9564

Open
nvazquez wants to merge 5 commits into
apache:mainfrom
shapeblue:420-vm-primary-storage-allocation
Open

nvazquez wants to merge 5 commits into
apache:mainfrom
shapeblue:420-vm-primary-storage-allocation

Conversation

@nvazquez

@nvazquez nvazquez commented Aug 21, 2024 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Description

This PR changes the preferred.storage.pool setting scope from Account to Account and Cluster scope.

The Account value takes precedence over the Cluster value, which takes precedence over the Global value.

Fixes: #8959

Types of changes

  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • Enhancement (improves an existing feature and functionality)
  • Cleanup (Code refactoring and cleanup, that may add test cases)
  • build/CI
  • test (unit or integration test code)

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

  • Major
  • Minor

Bug Severity

  • BLOCKER
  • Critical
  • Major
  • Minor
  • Trivial

Screenshots (if appropriate):

How Has This Been Tested?

How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?

@nvazquez

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@blueorangutan package

@blueorangutan

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@nvazquez a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

@codecov

codecov Bot commented Aug 21, 2024 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 83.87097% with 5 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 20.67%. Comparing base (b535ae8) to head (2acce94).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...om/cloud/deploy/DeploymentPlanningManagerImpl.java 55.55% 3 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...stack/engine/orchestration/VolumeOrchestrator.java 88.88% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               main    #9564   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     20.66%   20.67%           
- Complexity    21720    21735   +15     
=========================================
  Files          6492     6492           
  Lines        590728   590735    +7     
  Branches      72448    72451    +3     
=========================================
+ Hits         122101   122143   +42     
+ Misses       455355   455315   -40     
- Partials      13272    13277    +5     
Flag Coverage Δ
uitests 3.88% <ø> (ø)
unittests 21.98% <83.87%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@blueorangutan

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 10733

true, ConfigKey.Scope.Zone);
ConfigKey<String> PreferredStoragePool = new ConfigKey<String>(String.class, "preferred.storage.pool", "Advanced", "",
"The UUID of preferred storage pool for allocation.", true, ConfigKey.Scope.Account, null);
ConfigKey<String> PreferredStoragePool = new ConfigKey<>(String.class, "preferred.storage.pool", "Advanced", "",

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I wonder if we can have two configurations with same key

  • 1 for global/zone/cluster
  • 2 for global/domain/account

changing from Account to Cluster may be disliked by some users (maybe)

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @weizhouapache - there is now an option to define multiple scopes per setting: https://docs.cloudstack.apache.org/en/4.22.0.0/installguide/configuration.html#granular-global-configuration-parameters. I will explore this

@nvazquez

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@blueorangutan test

@blueorangutan

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@nvazquez a [SL] Trillian-Jenkins test job (ol8 mgmt + kvm-ol8) has been kicked to run smoke tests

@blueorangutan

Copy link
Copy Markdown

[SF] Trillian test result (tid-11126)
Environment: kvm-ol8 (x2), Advanced Networking with Mgmt server ol8
Total time taken: 48418 seconds
Marvin logs: https://github.com/blueorangutan/acs-prs/releases/download/trillian/pr9564-t11126-kvm-ol8.zip
Smoke tests completed. 139 look OK, 0 have errors, 0 did not run
Only failed and skipped tests results shown below:

Test Result Time (s) Test File

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Jan 8, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

This pull request has merge conflicts. Dear author, please fix the conflicts and sync your branch with the base branch.

@DaanHoogland

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@nvazquez should this target 4.19?

@nvazquez

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@DaanHoogland the issue this PR fixes was on the 4.19.2 milestone but I think it shouldn't be there as 4.20.0 is already out and changing the scope of the setting would be conflicting, perhaps it should be targeted to 4.20 instead of main?

@DaanHoogland

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@nvazquez we can change to v21 as well as it is an enhancement...?

@nvazquez nvazquez added this to the 4.21.0 milestone Jan 23, 2025
@nvazquez

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Sure @DaanHoogland fixed

@sureshanaparti sureshanaparti added this to the 4.23.0 milestone Apr 23, 2026
@weizhouapache

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@nvazquez
could you fix the conflicts ?

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

This pull request has merge conflicts. Dear author, please fix the conflicts and sync your branch with the base branch.

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

This pull request has merge conflicts. Dear author, please fix the conflicts and sync your branch with the base branch.

@weizhouapache weizhouapache modified the milestones: 4.23.0, 4.24.0 Jun 29, 2026
@DaanHoogland DaanHoogland moved this from Backlog to conflict/waiting for author in CloudStack Testing Aug 31, 2026
@nvazquez nvazquez changed the title [WIP] Preferred storage pool setting as a cluster setting Extend Preferred storage pool setting to cluster and account scope Oct 28, 2026
@nvazquez
nvazquez marked this pull request as ready for review October 28, 2026 02:15
Copilot AI balanced review requested due to automatic review settings October 28, 2026 02:15

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has insufficient remaining quota.

@nvazquez

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@blueorangutan package

@blueorangutan

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@nvazquez a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with no SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

@blueorangutan

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ el10 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 19783

@nvazquez

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@blueorangutan test

@blueorangutan

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@nvazquez a [SL] Trillian-Jenkins test job (ol8 mgmt + kvm-ol8) has been kicked to run smoke tests

This branch has not been deployed

No deployments
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

Status: conflict/waiting

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

VM allocation on Primary Storage

10 participants