Skip to content

Veeam: use pre-defined object mapper #10715

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: 4.20
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

weizhouapache
Copy link
Member

Description

This PR fixes #10478 by using a pre-defined xml mapper

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?

How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?

@weizhouapache weizhouapache linked an issue Apr 15, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request
Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 15, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 43.75000% with 9 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 16.01%. Comparing base (5300141) to head (9b3b7b1).
Report is 5 commits behind head on 4.20.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...rg/apache/cloudstack/backup/veeam/VeeamClient.java 43.75% 9 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               4.20   #10715   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     16.01%   16.01%           
- Complexity    13110    13113    +3     
=========================================
  Files          5652     5652           
  Lines        495845   495833   -12     
  Branches      60046    60046           
=========================================
+ Hits          79409    79410    +1     
+ Misses       407574   407561   -13     
  Partials       8862     8862           
Flag Coverage Δ
uitests 4.00% <ø> (ø)
unittests 16.85% <43.75%> (+<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.

@weizhouapache
Copy link
Member Author

@blueorangutan package

@blueorangutan
Copy link

@weizhouapache 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 13054

@weizhouapache weizhouapache marked this pull request as ready for review April 15, 2025 12:42
Copy link
Member

@winterhazel winterhazel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Code looks good. I did not test though.

@DaanHoogland
Copy link
Contributor

DaanHoogland commented Apr 17, 2025

code looks good indeed. Is there any way we can test this @winterhazel @weizhouapache ?

(or do we settle for the unit tests?)

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

@weizhouapache
Copy link
Member Author

code looks good indeed. Is there any way we can test this @winterhazel @weizhouapache ?

(or do we settle for the unit tests?)

@abh1sar @rajujith do you have a running veeam environment with valid license ?

@weizhouapache
Copy link
Member Author

code looks good indeed. Is there any way we can test this @winterhazel @weizhouapache ?
(or do we settle for the unit tests?)

@abh1sar @rajujith do you have a running veeam environment with valid license ?

thanks @abh1sar

@blueorangutan test ol8 vmware-70u3 keepEnv

@blueorangutan
Copy link

@weizhouapache a [SL] Trillian-Jenkins test job (ol8 mgmt + vmware-70u3) has been kicked to run smoke tests

@blueorangutan
Copy link

[SF] Trillian test result (tid-13123)
Environment: vmware-70u3 (x2), Advanced Networking with Mgmt server ol8
Total time taken: 79757 seconds
Marvin logs: https://github.com/blueorangutan/acs-prs/releases/download/trillian/pr10715-t13123-vmware-70u3.zip
Smoke tests completed. 134 look OK, 7 have errors, 0 did not run
Only failed and skipped tests results shown below:

Test Result Time (s) Test File
test_01_events_resource Error 362.81 test_events_resource.py
test_deploy_more_vms_than_limit_allows Error 158.99 test_deploy_vms_in_parallel.py
test_04_deploy_vm_for_other_user_and_test_vm_operations Error 123.54 test_network_permissions.py
test_01_deployVMInSharedNetwork Failure 3604.85 test_network.py
ContextSuite context=TestSharedNetworkWithConfigDrive>:teardown Error 3606.14 test_network.py
test_02_restore_vm_with_disk_offering Error 61.47 test_restore_vm.py
test_03_restore_vm_with_disk_offering_custom_size Error 62.52 test_restore_vm.py
test_02_restore_vm_strict_tags_failure Error 61.88 test_vm_strict_host_tags.py
test_02_redundant_VPC_default_routes Error 697.82 test_vpc_redundant.py

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.

VEEAM Backup integration - CloudStack 4.20
4 participants