Allow users to list VMs by Backup Offering Id

[SadiJr]

Description

Using the VMWare hypervisor, and with Veeam integration enabled, it is not possible, via API, list the VMs that are assigned to a Backup Offering.

This PR extends the listVMs API to allow users to list the VMs that have particular Backup Offerings.

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)

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

• Major
• Minor

Screenshots (if appropriate):

How Has This Been Tested?

It was tested in a local laboratory:

1. I have assigned two VMs to a Backup Offering;
2. Using cloudmonkey, I listed the VMs that use this Backup Offering;
3. The two VMs were correctly listed;
4. I removed one of the VMs from the Backup Offering and repeated step 2.
5. Only one VM was listed;
6. Finally I removed the other VM and repeated step 2;
7. No VMs were listed.

[GabrielBrascher]

Code LGTM.

[GabrielBrascher]

@blueorangutan package

[blueorangutan]

@GabrielBrascher a Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

[blueorangutan]

Packaging result: ✔️ el7 ✔️ el8 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 1719

[yadvr]

@blueorangutan test

[blueorangutan]

@rhtyd a Trillian-Jenkins test job (centos7 mgmt + kvm-centos7) has been kicked to run smoke tests

[blueorangutan]

Trillian test result (tid-2559)
Environment: kvm-centos7 (x2), Advanced Networking with Mgmt server 7
Total time taken: 37269 seconds
Marvin logs: https://github.com/blueorangutan/acs-prs/releases/download/trillian/pr5679-t2559-kvm-centos7.zip
Smoke tests completed. 91 look OK, 0 have errors
Only failed tests results shown below:

Test	Result	Time (s)	Test File

[DaanHoogland]

Do we need more testing here? I think an integration test could be written here.

[SadiJr]

@DaanHoogland Thanks for the suggestion. That is a good idea. We can implement functional tests with the use of the Dummy backup provider. As soon as possible I will try to implement the integration/functional tests. However, I will not be able to implement this in the next coming month or so. Therefore, if you think this PR is important, and the functional/integration tests is not a blocker, we can merge it, and later I can open a new one to introduce the required tests.

[DaanHoogland]

@SadiJr it is not a blocker, but also we are at the start of the 4.17 cycle so it doesn't really matter for the next few months.