Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
import smaller root disk sizes - #8488
Conversation
DaanHoogland
commented
Jan 10, 2024
@blueorangutan package |
blueorangutan
commented
Jan 10, 2024
@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 ReportAttention:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #8488 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 30.79% 30.81% +0.02% - Complexity 33990 34002 +12
============================================
Files 5341 5341 Lines 374961 374962 +1 Branches 54543 54543 ============================================
+ Hits 115452 115544 +92 + Misses 244241 244147 -94 - Partials 15268 15271 +3
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
blueorangutan
commented
Jan 10, 2024
Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el7 ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 8265 |
the rootsize issue seems solved (tested) /me still looking |
blueorangutan
commented
Jan 10, 2024
Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el7 ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 8270 |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
shwstppr
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Disk size change looks okay but not sure about IP check
| } | ||
| for (String usedIp : usedIps) { | ||
| // only half witted support for ipv6 here :( | ||
| if (usedIp.equals(ipAddresses.getIp4Address()) || usedIp.equals(ipAddresses.getIp6Address())) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will this allow passing any random IP outside of the network?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
good point, maybe add a cidr check as well. The issue was that the network did not have a cidr though. Not sure how to handle that except for just accepting the ip.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@DaanHoogland then would it make sense to just fix/merge the root disk size issue and address the specific case later?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes, but can you check again? I can split in two PRs if it still needs work
There was a problem hiding this comment.
splitting out as dragons be there
blueorangutan
commented
Jan 10, 2024
Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el7 ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 8273 |
nvazquez
commented
Jan 10, 2024
@blueorangutan package |
blueorangutan
commented
Jan 10, 2024
@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. |
shwstppr
commented
Jan 11, 2024
@blueorangutan package |
blueorangutan
commented
Jan 11, 2024
@shwstppr 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
commented
Jan 11, 2024
Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el7 ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 8284 |
DaanHoogland
commented
Jan 11, 2024
@blueorangutan package |
blueorangutan
commented
Jan 11, 2024
@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
commented
Jan 11, 2024
Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el7 ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 8285 |
shwstppr
commented
Jan 11, 2024
Tested this. Import works fine but volume size is returned as 0 for imported VM with smaller size volumes. listUnmanagedInstances output, Import called with params, Template used in Macchinina ListVM output for the imported VM, List volumes output for the VM volume, |
f045990 to
1a37043Compareblueorangutan
commented
Jan 11, 2024
Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el7 ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 8290 |
DaanHoogland
commented
Jan 11, 2024
this is now solved is a way, but the size is now rounded to 1Gb. this seems to be a limitation of the feature. I am not sure if there is something to be done about that (@nvazquez ?) |
shwstppr
commented
Jan 12, 2024
@DaanHoogland I tested on 4.18.1 and the problem from #8488 (comment) exists there as well. Should we merge without the last change? |
DaanHoogland
commented
Jan 12, 2024
ok, by the look of c01e162 we can abandon this PR. |
DaanHoogland
commented
Jan 12, 2024
this is incorporated in #8500 as far as needed |
Description
This PR tries to deal with on of the leftovers from #8465 as reported in #8439
still remaining and to be addressed separately:
Types of changes
Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity
Feature/Enhancement Scale
Bug Severity
Screenshots (if appropriate):
How Has This Been Tested?
How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?