Skip to content

Fix the size of a template downloaded from secondary storage #10662

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 23, 2025

Conversation

slavkap
Copy link
Contributor

@slavkap slavkap commented Apr 4, 2025

Description

This PR fixes the size of a template downloaded from secondary storage to StorPool.

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)

Bug Severity

  • BLOCKER
  • Critical
  • Major
  • Minor
  • Trivial

How Has This Been Tested?

manually

Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 4, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 16.01%. Comparing base (33cdddf) to head (a9cf95c).
Report is 51 commits behind head on 4.20.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...tastore/driver/StorPoolPrimaryDataStoreDriver.java 0.00% 2 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               4.20   #10662   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     16.00%   16.01%           
- Complexity    13105    13112    +7     
=========================================
  Files          5651     5651           
  Lines        495870   495859   -11     
  Branches      60049    60048    -1     
=========================================
+ Hits          79373    79395   +22     
+ Misses       407634   407609   -25     
+ Partials       8863     8855    -8     
Flag Coverage Δ
uitests 4.00% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
unittests 16.85% <0.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️

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.

🚀 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.

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

@Pearl1594 Pearl1594 added this to the 4.20.1 milestone Apr 8, 2025
@Pearl1594 Pearl1594 moved this to In Progress in ACS 4.20.1 Apr 8, 2025
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.

clgtm

@Pearl1594
Copy link
Contributor

@blueorangutan package

@blueorangutan
Copy link

@Pearl1594 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.

@blueorangutan
Copy link

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 12980

Fixing the size of a template that is downloaded from secondary storage
to StorPool
@slavkap slavkap force-pushed the fix_size_when_download_template branch from bf7fc63 to a9cf95c Compare April 8, 2025 12:59
@DaanHoogland
Copy link
Contributor

@blueorangutan package

@blueorangutan
Copy link

@DaanHoogland 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.

@blueorangutan
Copy link

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 12985

@DaanHoogland
Copy link
Contributor

@slavkap , I guess there is no chance this is ever executed with other storage types active?
I do not like your 370 lines method, but I guess it makes no sense to test this bit on a nfs environment.

@DaanHoogland
Copy link
Contributor

@slavkap , I guess there is no chance this is ever executed with other storage types active? I do not like your 370 lines method, but I guess it makes no sense to test this bit on a nfs environment.

@Pearl1594 cc ^^

@slavkap
Copy link
Contributor Author

slavkap commented Apr 8, 2025

@DaanHoogland, no, there isn't a chance. I don't like it either, that's why I'm refactoring on small chunks when there's a need for a change in this part of the code

@Pearl1594 Pearl1594 merged commit f6f33c6 into apache:4.20 Apr 23, 2025
25 of 26 checks passed
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this from In Progress to Done in ACS 4.20.1 Apr 23, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants