Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Simplify validation while creating volume templates via UI #9828

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

hsato03
Copy link
Collaborator

@hsato03 hsato03 commented Oct 18, 2024

Description

Currently, creating templates for DATADISK volumes is only possible if they have already been part of a VM and are detached. This behavior has been extended so that the volume does not need to be detached and the template can be created as long as the VM is stopped.

Furthermore, the UI allows templates to be created for ROOT volumes in the Allocated state, however, the creation always results in an error as the volume needs to exist in the primary storage for the template creation to be possible. With the changes, this option is no longer available.

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?

In the UI, I tried creating a template from a volume in different scenarios:

VM State Volume Type Volume State Could create the template?
1 Stopped ROOT Allocated No
2 Stopped ROOT Ready Yes
3 Stopped DATADISK Ready Yes
4 Detached volume DATADISK Ready Yes
5 Running ROOT Ready No
6 Running DATADISK Ready No

Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 18, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 15.78%. Comparing base (019f2c6) to head (f24550b).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##               main    #9828    +/-   ##
==========================================
  Coverage     15.78%   15.78%            
- Complexity    12564    12565     +1     
==========================================
  Files          5627     5627            
  Lines        492250   492250            
  Branches      61405    61137   -268     
==========================================
  Hits          77710    77710            
  Misses       406066   406066            
  Partials       8474     8474            
Flag Coverage Δ
uitests 4.04% <ø> (ø)
unittests 16.60% <ø> (ø)

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

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

@hsato03
Copy link
Collaborator Author

hsato03 commented Oct 18, 2024

@blueorangutan ui

@blueorangutan
Copy link

@hsato03 a Jenkins job has been kicked to build UI QA env. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

@blueorangutan
Copy link

UI build failed: ✖️
(SL-JID-466)

@DaanHoogland
Copy link
Contributor

@blueorangutan ui

@blueorangutan
Copy link

@DaanHoogland a Jenkins job has been kicked to build UI QA env. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

@blueorangutan
Copy link

UI build failed: ✖️
(SL-JID-469)

@blueorangutan
Copy link

UI build: ✖️
(SL-JID-4051)

Copy link
Contributor

@Pearl1594 Pearl1594 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Verified listed combinations, works as expected. LGTM

Copy link
Contributor

@DaanHoogland DaanHoogland left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

clgtm (and tested by @Pearl1594 ) not sure what caused the build failures yet, but investigating

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants