Repository navigation
refactoring views out of upgrade db schema scripts - #9401
KlausDornsbach wants to merge 4 commits into
Conversation
|
@blueorangutan package |
|
@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. |
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #9401 +/- ##
=============================================
+ Coverage 15.55% 20.69% +5.14%
- Complexity 12010 21773 +9763
=============================================
Files 5500 6492 +992
Lines 481850 590805 +108955
Branches 61843 72461 +10618
=============================================
+ Hits 74935 122274 +47339
- Misses 398628 455252 +56624
- Partials 8287 13279 +4992
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
DaanHoogland
left a comment
DaanHoogland
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
clgtm, @KlausDornsbach I trust you checked these views actually exist? I know I did a round of checking when I extended the views directory a while ago, but we can never be too sure ;)
|
Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el7 ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 10381 |
|
@blueorangutan test |
|
@DaanHoogland a [SL] Trillian-Jenkins test job (centos7 mgmt + kvm-centos7) has been kicked to run smoke tests |
|
[SF] Trillian Build Failed (tid-10883) |
|
Thanks for the heads up, did a double check and things are looking fine |
|
[SF] Trillian test result (tid-10905)
|
|
LGTM, but I'm not sure if it would break anything that may require the views to be created during db upgrade paths are executed and before the views are created (or re-created). I also don't know if this needs upgrade tests across different versions & hypervisor combinations. Worth investigating them, before merging this. |
good point about the upgrades, @rohityadavcloud . I'll start at least from 4.19 and 4.18. We can always advice to upgrade stepwise via any of those first. |
|
@rohityadavcloud , both upgradespassed in the an automated upgrade test with test VMs etc. Is this good enough you think? |
|
This pull request has merge conflicts. Dear author, please fix the conflicts and sync your branch with the base branch. |
|
@KlausDornsbach , can you resolve the conflicts, please? |
|
@blueorangutan package |
|
@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. |
|
Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✖️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 10758 |
|
I though we already had this behind us, is it still needed @KlausDornsbach? cc @vladimirpetrov |
|
@blueorangutan package |
|
@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 package |
|
@weizhouapache 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. |
|
Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ el10 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 17761 |
|
@blueorangutan test |
|
@DaanHoogland a [SL] Trillian-Jenkins test job (ol8 mgmt + kvm-ol8) has been kicked to run smoke tests |
|
[SF] Trillian Build Failed (tid-16091) |
|
Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ el10 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 17923 |
|
@blueorangutan test |
|
@DaanHoogland a [SL] Trillian-Jenkins test job (ol8 mgmt + kvm-ol8) has been kicked to run smoke tests |
|
[SF] Trillian test result (tid-16143)
|
|
Hi @KlausDornsbach @DaanHoogland @sureshanaparti what is the status of this PR? Is it ready for testing? |
|
@nvazquez , imnsho it should have been merged already. |
|
Hi @KlausDornsbach can you check and address the outstanding comments. thanks. |
|
@sureshanaparti @KlausDornsbach has not been very active lately, to my knowledge. Not sure if he is still involved in the project. I think you'll have to do the changes yourself??? |
|
Hi @JoaoJandre @winterhazel @hsato03 not sure if Klaus is still active, can you please advise if you plan to have any further additions to this PR or we can apply the review suggestion and proceed the review? |
Hello @nvazquez Klaus is no longer active. I'll apply the suggestions and push a new commit |
|
@sureshanaparti @nvazquez can you review? |
Description
Based on the comment #9385 (comment) from @DaanHoogland, and considering that all the DB view definitions are currently refactored out of the DB upgrade schema sql scripts, I took the liberty to delete most of the remaining unused view definitions on these scripts, as they are overwritten in the end of the DB upgrade workflow.
Types of changes
Feature/Enhancement Scale
How Has This Been Tested?
Tested resetting the database to the 4.0.0 version via the management script cloudstack-setup-databases. After the database reset, the management server was also reset to ensure it ran all upgrade scripts.
Once the reset process was completed, various API operations were tested, particularly those that use database views to build their responses. Verifying the behavior was the same after the changes. During these tests, normal behavior was consistently observed. All API operations performed as expected, with no errors encountered.
Furthermore, the log stream was monitored throughout the testing phase to detect any potential issues or anomalies. The logs remained clear, showing no errors or warnings related to the current refactor.