SystemVM offering declaration - #327
Conversation
274d962 to
5ed8725
Compare
|
Hi @bddvlpr Can you check the failed tests here. Thanks. |
|
These failing tests are not of my doing, one of which is the panic where the acceptance test times out (happens upstream too periodically). The other is a racecon on the initialization of the simulator which also happens upstream. Could you please re-run these tests? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Warning
Copilot couldn't run its full agentic review because it didn't start before the timeout. Make sure your repository has a runner available, or add a copilot-code-review.yml file specifying one with the runs-on attribute. See the docs for more details.
Pull request overview
Copilot reviewed 5 out of 5 changed files in this pull request and generated 5 comments.
|
Hi @bddvlpr Can you check & address the copilot comments if relevant. Thanks. |
|
I've adressed the comments. Only one was kind-of relevant and I've added tests for this one. |
|
@bddvlpr validateSystemServiceOfferingConfiguration compares system_vm_type/storage_type against lowercase literals, but both fields accept mixed case via StringInSlice(..., true) — the lowercasing StateFunc only applies to stored state, not to the raw value CustomizeDiff sees while planning. So system_vm_type = "DomainRouter" (valid per schema, and CloudStack's own casing convention) with network_rate set wrongly fails with "network_rate can only be set when system_vm_type is domainrouter". Same issue in reverse for storage_type = "Local" + offer_ha — it silently skips the check instead. Could this be a problem? |
Adds a
cloudstack_system_service_offeringresource that does what it says on the tin, creates SystemVM offerings. I was first considering merging this logic withcloudstack_service_offering_fixedas it performs the exact same API call with an exception of a few parameters, but to avoid confusion I kept it separate (I also don't want to mix it with the shared commons between constrained and fixed offerings).