removing the usage of volumeFreeze StorPool API call

[slavkap]

Description

Deprecate the usage of the volumeFreeze API call.

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

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

• Major
• Minor

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 41 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 23.10%. Comparing base (8f6721e) to head (23e3f20).

Files	Patch %	Lines
...tastore/driver/StorPoolPrimaryDataStoreDriver.java	0.00%	36 Missing ⚠️
...ack/storage/motion/StorPoolDataMotionStrategy.java	0.00%	5 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #8575      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     30.90%   23.10%   -7.80%     
+ Complexity    33382    23318   -10064     
============================================
  Files          5355     5219     -136     
  Lines        375727   353392   -22335     
  Branches      54915    50877    -4038     
============================================
- Hits         116109    81663   -34446     
- Misses       244219   259918   +15699     
+ Partials      15399    11811    -3588     

Flag	Coverage Δ
simulator-marvin-tests	24.77% <0.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
uitests	4.36% <ø> (ø)
unit-tests	?

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.

[github-actions]

This pull request has merge conflicts. Dear author, please fix the conflicts and sync your branch with the base branch.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 44 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 16.07%. Comparing base (ab76d3c) to head (f8020dc).
Report is 120 commits behind head on 4.20.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...tastore/driver/StorPoolPrimaryDataStoreDriver.java	0.00%	38 Missing ⚠️
...ack/storage/motion/StorPoolDataMotionStrategy.java	0.00%	6 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               4.20    #8575   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     16.07%   16.07%           
- Complexity    12883    12884    +1     
=========================================
  Files          5639     5639           
  Lines        494193   494179   -14     
  Branches      59925    59919    -6     
=========================================
+ Hits          79419    79420    +1     
+ Misses       405944   405929   -15     
  Partials       8830     8830           

Flag	Coverage Δ
uitests	4.02% <ø> (ø)
unittests	16.91% <0.00%> (+<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.

[sureshanaparti]

Ping @slavkap Any further work on this?

[slavkap]

hey @sureshanaparti, no, I think all needed is included

[sureshanaparti]

@blueorangutan package

[github-actions]

This pull request has merge conflicts. Dear author, please fix the conflicts and sync your branch with the base branch.

[slavkap]

@JoaoJandre, is it possible for this to get in at 4.20? It doesn't affect other storage plugins or CloudStack core; a StorPool API call is deprecated, and this is a cleanup.

[JoaoJandre]

@JoaoJandre, is it possible for this to get in at 4.20? It doesn't affect other storage plugins or CloudStack core; a StorPool API call is deprecated, and this is a cleanup.

@slavkap , I understand your point, but as this is not fixing a bug and could introduce new ones (as any PR could), I think that it is safer to wait for the next release. From the user perspective, the functionality will not change, right?

[github-actions]

This pull request has merge conflicts. Dear author, please fix the conflicts and sync your branch with the base branch.

[DaanHoogland]

@slavkap @JoaoJandre does it make sense to add this to 4.20.1?

[sureshanaparti]

clgtm

[DaanHoogland]

clgtm

[Pearl1594]

@blueorangutan package

[blueorangutan]

@Pearl1594 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]

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 12470

[DaanHoogland]

@blueorangutan test

[blueorangutan]

@DaanHoogland a [SL] Trillian-Jenkins test job (ol8 mgmt + kvm-ol8) has been kicked to run smoke tests

[blueorangutan]

[SF] Trillian Build Failed (tid-12430)

[Pearl1594]

@blueorangutan package

[blueorangutan]

@Pearl1594 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]

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 12621

[DaanHoogland]

@blueorangutan test

[blueorangutan]

@DaanHoogland a [SL] Trillian-Jenkins test job (ol8 mgmt + kvm-ol8) has been kicked to run smoke tests

[blueorangutan]

[SF] Trillian test result (tid-12533)
Environment: kvm-ol8 (x2), Advanced Networking with Mgmt server ol8
Total time taken: 53487 seconds
Marvin logs: https://github.com/blueorangutan/acs-prs/releases/download/trillian/pr8575-t12533-kvm-ol8.zip
Smoke tests completed. 140 look OK, 1 have errors, 0 did not run
Only failed and skipped tests results shown below:

Test	Result	Time (s)	Test File
test_06_purge_expunged_vm_background_task	Failure	381.12	test_purge_expunged_vms.py