server: event for HA vm start

[shwstppr]

Description

Fixes #8021

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

Bug Severity

• BLOCKER
• Critical
• Major
• Minor
• Trivial

Screenshots (if appropriate):

How Has This Been Tested?

After change:

User VM

• Destroy a HA-enabled VM on KVM hypervisor host using virsh
• Observe events for the VM

root@pr8601-t6928-kvm-ubuntu22-kvm1:~# date
Thu Jun 13 05:14:13 AM UTC 2024
root@pr8601-t6928-kvm-ubuntu22-kvm1:~# virsh destroy i-2-14-VM
Domain 'i-2-14-VM' destroyed

VR

• Destroy a HA-enabled VR on KVM hypervisor host using virsh
• Observe events for the VR

root@pr8601-t6928-kvm-ubuntu22-kvm2:~# date
Thu Jun 13 05:18:12 AM UTC 2024
root@pr8601-t6928-kvm-ubuntu22-kvm2:~# virsh destroy r-13-VM
Domain 'r-13-VM' destroyed

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 4.29%. Comparing base (8d02e5f) to head (6a83a22).

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               4.19   #9202       +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     14.95%   4.29%   -10.67%     
============================================
  Files          5378     363     -5015     
  Lines        469930   29387   -440543     
  Branches      59422    5138    -54284     
============================================
- Hits          70301    1261    -69040     
+ Misses       391842   27983   -363859     
+ Partials       7787     143     -7644     

Flag	Coverage Δ
uitests	4.29% <ø> (ø)
unittests	?

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.

[DaanHoogland]

clgtm, just wondering if we could call the methods just startForHA(..) instead of type specific names? I know the services to call are different, so it's only cosmetic.

[shwstppr]

@DaanHoogland separate methods are called allow publishing of events of different types. Initially, I did the same.
Other way to allow publishing of correct events could be manually calling ActionEventUtils.onStarted/onCompleted/onError

[shwstppr]

@blueorangutan package

[blueorangutan]

@shwstppr 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.

[DaanHoogland]

@DaanHoogland separate methods are called allow publishing of events of different types. Initially, I did the same. Other way to allow publishing of correct events could be manually calling ActionEventUtils.onStarted/onCompleted/onError

not sure if we understand each other @shwstppr , couldn't routerService.startRouterForHA(vm, params, planner); be just called routerService.startForHA(vm, params, planner); and consoleProxyManager.startProxyForHA(vm, params, planner); be called consoleProxyManager.startForHA(vm, params, planner); and so on?

[shwstppr]

oh. I thought you meant using a single method. That can be changed. I based the on the existing methods in the service, eg: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/9202/files#diff-94dd8d188fcf167c1fe8196f66e9817665641c95eda7f3c8fa03c2876ad1a1a2R60

[DaanHoogland]

oh. I thought you meant using a single method. That can be changed. I based the on the existing methods in the service, eg: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/9202/files#diff-94dd8d188fcf167c1fe8196f66e9817665641c95eda7f3c8fa03c2876ad1a1a2R60

I was just seeing the possiboility for some polimorphism. retrieve the interface and run a generic method on it. I am not sure if this will give us much cleanup or maintainability in this case though. Do as you see fit.

[blueorangutan]

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el7 ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 9917

[shwstppr]

yes, currently it won't benefit. Will try to explore a generic interface like BaseVmManager in the coming weeks

[github-actions]

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

[yadvr]

@blueorangutan package

[blueorangutan]

@rohityadavcloud 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]: ✔️ el7 ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 9992

[DaanHoogland]

@blueorangutan test

[blueorangutan]

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

[blueorangutan]

[SF] Trillian test result (tid-10504)
Environment: kvm-centos7 (x2), Advanced Networking with Mgmt server 7
Total time taken: 43660 seconds
Marvin logs: https://github.com/blueorangutan/acs-prs/releases/download/trillian/pr9202-t10504-kvm-centos7.zip
Smoke tests completed. 130 look OK, 1 have errors, 0 did not run
Only failed and skipped tests results shown below:

Test	Result	Time (s)	Test File
test_02_trigger_shutdown	Failure	341.66	test_safe_shutdown.py

[vishesh92]

Tested. Working as expected. I could see events for Stop & Start after destroying the vm from host.
Followed the below steps from the issue to reproduce on two environments with and without the patch:

1. Create a VM with ha enabled offering
2. Destroy the VM on the hypervisor (in KVM via virsh destroy )
3. Wait until CS is restarting the VM
4. Take a look at Events tab of VM and/or Events Tab of main menu

Details

Without patch

With patch