Proxmox extention for foreman_bootdisk #90

Manisha15 · 2020-03-11T15:12:19Z

No description provided.

theforeman-bot · 2020-03-11T15:12:21Z

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

lib/foreman_bootdisk/engine.rb

sbernhard · 2020-03-30T08:26:02Z

Thanks Manisha. I guess, it would make sense that @tristanrobert (foreman fog proxmox) should also have a look at this.

m-bucher

Thanks for taking the time to add tests.
However, I saw that the new_vm-test only tests if foreman_fog_proxmox does not change the attributes upon calling the new_server_vm() (and if it uses server-virtualization).
This is a pretty small coverage.
Any chance you could extend this (without mocking a complete proxmox-server 😉 ).

It would be good to have a test for iso_upload() and iso_attach() as well.

Manisha15 · 2020-03-31T09:16:59Z

Thanks for taking the time to add tests.
However, I saw that the new_vm-test only tests if foreman_fog_proxmox does not change the attributes upon calling the new_server_vm() (and if it uses server-virtualization).
This is a pretty small coverage.
Any chance you could extend this (without mocking a complete proxmox-server ).

It would be good to have a test for iso_upload() and iso_attach() as well.

Thank you for reviewing. I have added tests for iso_upload and iso_attach. Can you please review again.

sbernhard · 2020-03-31T11:40:52Z

[test foreman_bootdisk]

sbernhard · 2020-03-31T13:36:32Z

[test foreman_bootdisk]

m-bucher

Unit-tests always make me dizzy 💫

Right now I can remove the iso_attach() and iso_upload() methods and the tests run through successfully 😆 .
But the vmware implementation also does not test if the iso_upload()-method is actually there and calls the backend with a specific method and parameters.

Therefore, it is probably not worth the effort to implement it for proxmox right now 😄

If you fix the typo in the new test, I am ok with the current state.

m-bucher · 2020-03-31T14:11:36Z

test/unit/concerns/orchestration/compute_test.rb

    end

    test 'provisioning a host with provision method bootdisk should upload iso' do
      @cr.expects(:iso_upload)
      @host.send(:setIsoImage)
    end

+    test 'provisioning a host with provision method bootdisk in proxmox should attach iso' do
+      @proxmox_cr.expects(:iso_upload)


I think you mean :iso_attach, here.

ekohl · 2020-04-01T09:07:38Z

test/test_plugin_helper.rb

@@ -4,6 +4,9 @@
 require 'webmock/minitest'
 require 'webmock'

+FactoryBot.definition_file_paths << File.join(File.dirname(__FILE__), 'factories')


Suggested change

FactoryBot.definition_file_paths << File.join(File.dirname(__FILE__), 'factories')

FactoryBot.definition_file_paths << File.join(__dir__, 'factories')

sbernhard · 2020-04-01T09:59:20Z

[test foreman_bootdisk]

sbernhard · 2020-04-01T14:02:22Z

[test foreman_bootdisk]

sbernhard · 2020-04-01T17:39:53Z

Looks like the tests are running but some rubocop issues occured in the proxmox extension. Can you have a look at them @Manisha15 ?

See https://ci.theforeman.org/job/foreman_bootdisk-pull-request/36/database=postgresql,label=fast,ruby=2.6/console

sbernhard · 2020-04-06T07:13:21Z

[test foreman_bootdisk]

lib/foreman_bootdisk/engine.rb

Manisha15 · 2023-11-08T13:09:20Z

@evgeni @lzap Can you please review this again? The tests are green now.

evgeni · 2023-11-08T13:20:55Z

.github/workflows/ruby_ci.yaml

@@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ jobs:
      - name: Setup Bundler
        run: |
          echo "gem 'foreman_bootdisk', path: './foreman_bootdisk'" > bundler.d/foreman_bootdisk.local.rb
+          echo "gem 'foreman_fog_proxmox'" >> bundler.d/foreman_bootdisk.local.rb


I would have expected this is not required, given you also edited Gemfile? (not blocking, just curious)

Yeah, now it is not required.

FYI: in our common CI we use gemfile.d/*.rb. For our reusable GHA it's here and Jenkins implements a similar thing.

Then in Gemfile you can use eval_gemfile:

group :test do eval_gemfile 'gemfile.d/proxmox.rb' end

This means you only specify >= 0.14.2 once.

Added this change. But how will it find the gemfile.d/proxmox.rb as it's not there on foreman side as well as in foreman_bootdisk gemfile.d ?

@ekohl This also fails the rubocop as it cannot find the gemfile.d/proxmox.rb.

Added this change. But how will it find the gemfile.d/proxmox.rb as it's not there on foreman side as well as in foreman_bootdisk gemfile.d ?

Foreman doesn't care about Gemfile, so it shouldn't matter.

@ekohl This also fails the rubocop as it cannot find the gemfile.d/proxmox.rb.

Because you didn't use git add so it's not in the repository.

evgeni · 2023-11-08T13:21:31Z

I am neither a bootdisk nor a proxmox expert, but this doesn't read crazy to me :)

evgeni · 2023-11-08T13:26:09Z

fixing the RPM build in #149

evgeni · 2023-11-08T15:04:00Z

Now it skipped the Proxmox tests 😞

Sorry for the bad idea

Manisha15 · 2023-11-17T13:46:04Z

Now it skipped the Proxmox tests 😞

Sorry for the bad idea

changed it again, and now tests are running and green.

ekohl · 2023-11-17T16:05:39Z

.github/workflows/ruby_ci.yaml

@@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ jobs:
      - name: Setup Bundler
        run: |
          echo "gem 'foreman_bootdisk', path: './foreman_bootdisk'" > bundler.d/foreman_bootdisk.local.rb
+          echo "gem 'foreman_fog_proxmox'" >> bundler.d/foreman_bootdisk.local.rb


FYI: in our common CI we use gemfile.d/*.rb. For our reusable GHA it's here and Jenkins implements a similar thing.

Then in Gemfile you can use eval_gemfile:

group :test do eval_gemfile 'gemfile.d/proxmox.rb' end

This means you only specify >= 0.14.2 once.

ekohl · 2023-11-17T16:09:10Z

app/models/concerns/foreman_bootdisk/compute_resources/proxmox.rb

+        config_hash = { ide2: "#{volume.volid},media=cdrom" }
+        server.update(config_hash)
+        server.update({ boot: "order=ide2;#{disks}" })


AFAIK the latest rubocop-performance will flag this and tell you to simplify to regular assignments:

Suggested change

config_hash = { ide2: "#{volume.volid},media=cdrom" }

server.update(config_hash)

server.update({ boot: "order=ide2;#{disks}" })

server[:ide2] = "#{volume.volid},media=cdrom"

server[:boot] = "order=ide2;#{disks}"

Since it's a server object and not a hash so this assignment is not possible and it throw error NoMethodError (undefined method []=' for #Fog::Proxmox::Compute::Server:0x0000564003398f20)`

And we want to first add the cdrom (ide2) and update the server and then update the boot order because if we update the server with both cdrom and boot order, it takes wrong boot order. It tries to update the attributes alphabetically and without adding ide2 it cannot update boot order properly.

ekohl · 2023-11-17T16:10:27Z

app/models/concerns/foreman_bootdisk/compute_resources/proxmox.rb

+        server.update(config_hash)
+
+        # cdrom will be ejected on next power off
+        server.detach('ide2')


Given the repetition, would it be good to declare ide2 as a constant?

ide2 is a cdrom and for attachment and detachment it has different values. In iso detach function, first it is ejected, thus, set to none and detach action takes place which will be executed when the vm is powered off. So, it cannot be set as a constant.

But it's hardcoded in the code, so it already is. I don't see why you can't use CDROM_VOLUME = 'ide2' and then later server.detach(CDROM_VOLUME).

ekohl · 2023-11-17T16:12:05Z

app/models/concerns/foreman_bootdisk/compute_resources/proxmox.rb

+
+        # delete the iso file from proxmox server
+        storage = storages(server.node_id, 'iso')[0]
+        volume = storage.volumes.detect { |v| v.volid.include? volid }


When would this volume ID not be exactly equal? If the volume IDs are integers I'd imagine this also end up being 123'.include?('12') so

Suggested change

volume = storage.volumes.detect { |v| v.volid.include? volid }

volume = storage.volumes.detect { |v| v.volid == volid }

Also, previously you already used volid = server.volumes.get("ide2").volid so why can't you just do:

server.volumes.get('ide2').destroy

We don't want to destroy the disk 'ide2' as the operation is not possible when vm is powered on. We just want to destroy the volume so that the iso files are not piled up in proxmox server.

So volume = storage.volumes.detect { |v| v.volid.include? volid } returns a different object than server.volumes.get("ide2"). That would surprise me.

Yes, server.volumes are disks of the server so it returns the disks, Fog::Proxmox::Compute::Disks and storage.volumes are volumes so it returns Fog::Proxmox::Compute::Volumes. You can remove the volumes without caring about server but you cannot remove the disk without powering off the server (hotplug issue).

app/models/concerns/foreman_bootdisk/compute_resources/proxmox.rb

theforeman-bot added Needs testing Not yet reviewed labels Mar 11, 2020

Manisha15 changed the title ~~Proxmox extention for foreman_bootdisk~~ WIP:Proxmox extention for foreman_bootdisk Mar 11, 2020

timogoebel reviewed Mar 11, 2020

View reviewed changes

lib/foreman_bootdisk/engine.rb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Manisha15 force-pushed the proxmox_extension branch 2 times, most recently from bf1c6dc to eafb56c Compare March 30, 2020 07:29

Manisha15 changed the title ~~WIP:Proxmox extention for foreman_bootdisk~~ Proxmox extention for foreman_bootdisk Mar 30, 2020

m-bucher reviewed Mar 30, 2020

View reviewed changes

Manisha15 force-pushed the proxmox_extension branch from eafb56c to 904453b Compare March 31, 2020 09:10

m-bucher suggested changes Mar 31, 2020

View reviewed changes

theforeman-bot added Waiting on contributor and removed Not yet reviewed labels Mar 31, 2020

Manisha15 force-pushed the proxmox_extension branch from a2e0e6b to 1ae1b3e Compare April 1, 2020 06:36

theforeman-bot added Needs re-review and removed Waiting on contributor labels Apr 1, 2020

ekohl reviewed Apr 1, 2020

View reviewed changes

Manisha15 force-pushed the proxmox_extension branch 5 times, most recently from b247129 to c78d8a0 Compare April 6, 2020 07:11

Manisha15 marked this pull request as ready for review October 26, 2023 13:41

Manisha15 force-pushed the proxmox_extension branch from 2c43785 to 70b7e3f Compare October 26, 2023 13:43

evgeni reviewed Oct 26, 2023

View reviewed changes

lib/foreman_bootdisk/engine.rb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Manisha15 force-pushed the proxmox_extension branch from 70b7e3f to 68f1663 Compare October 26, 2023 14:39

Manisha15 force-pushed the proxmox_extension branch from 68f1663 to 5dd82cc Compare November 8, 2023 10:37

evgeni reviewed Nov 8, 2023

View reviewed changes

Manisha15 force-pushed the proxmox_extension branch from 5dd82cc to 7ad79a1 Compare November 8, 2023 14:58

Manisha15 force-pushed the proxmox_extension branch 2 times, most recently from dbe30c0 to 29a3d1e Compare November 8, 2023 15:22

ekohl requested changes Nov 17, 2023

View reviewed changes

pr-processor bot added the Waiting on contributor label Nov 17, 2023

Manisha15 force-pushed the proxmox_extension branch from 29a3d1e to af360b2 Compare December 4, 2023 20:29

pr-processor bot added Needs re-review and removed Waiting on contributor labels Dec 4, 2023

Manisha15 force-pushed the proxmox_extension branch from af360b2 to 8b1a5e2 Compare December 5, 2023 09:31

Manisha15 force-pushed the proxmox_extension branch from 8b1a5e2 to 896609b Compare December 15, 2023 11:07

stejskalleos self-assigned this Jan 9, 2024

dgoetz mentioned this pull request Jan 11, 2024

Document VMWare bootdisk provisioning theforeman/foreman-documentation#619

Open

stejskalleos removed their assignment Feb 13, 2024

Manisha15 force-pushed the proxmox_extension branch 3 times, most recently from de8481b to 9bcc2fa Compare April 11, 2024 13:34

pr-processor bot removed the Needs re-review label Aug 9, 2024

Proxmox extention for foreman_bootdisk

bc6d98d

Manisha15 force-pushed the proxmox_extension branch from 9bcc2fa to bc6d98d Compare August 9, 2024 12:41

	FactoryBot.definition_file_paths << File.join(File.dirname(__FILE__), 'factories')
	FactoryBot.definition_file_paths << File.join(__dir__, 'factories')

	volume = storage.volumes.detect { \|v\| v.volid.include? volid }
	volume = storage.volumes.detect { \|v\| v.volid == volid }

Proxmox extention for foreman_bootdisk #90

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Proxmox extention for foreman_bootdisk #90

Conversation

Manisha15 commented Mar 11, 2020

theforeman-bot commented Mar 11, 2020

sbernhard commented Mar 30, 2020

m-bucher left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Manisha15 commented Mar 31, 2020

sbernhard commented Mar 31, 2020

sbernhard commented Mar 31, 2020

m-bucher left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sbernhard commented Apr 1, 2020

sbernhard commented Apr 1, 2020

sbernhard commented Apr 1, 2020

sbernhard commented Apr 6, 2020

Manisha15 commented Nov 8, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

evgeni commented Nov 8, 2023

evgeni commented Nov 8, 2023

evgeni commented Nov 8, 2023

Manisha15 commented Nov 17, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment