Guest OS rules#10098
Conversation
|
This pull request has merge conflicts. Dear author, please fix the conflicts and sync your branch with the base branch. |
BryanMLima
force-pushed
the
guest-os-rules
branch
from
4835d26 to
796ecb1
Compare
|
This pull request has merge conflicts. Dear author, please fix the conflicts and sync your branch with the base branch. |
|
@blueorangutan package |
|
@sureshanaparti 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. |
|
Packaging result [SF]: ✖️ el8 ✖️ el9 ✖️ debian ✖️ suse15. SL-JID 13624 |
|
Packaging result [SF]: ✖️ el8 ✖️ el9 ✖️ debian ✖️ suse15. SL-JID 13720 |
|
Packaging result [SF]: ✖️ el8 ✖️ el9 ✖️ debian ✖️ suse15. SL-JID 13731 |
|
@BryanMLima can you look at the conflicts? |
I will take a look this week, apologies for disappearing 😅 . |
|
This pull request has merge conflicts. Dear author, please fix the conflicts and sync your branch with the base branch. |
|
This pull request has merge conflicts. Dear author, please fix the conflicts and sync your branch with the base branch. |
|
This pull request has merge conflicts. Dear author, please fix the conflicts and sync your branch with the base branch. |
|
@blueorangutan package |
|
@winterhazel a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with no SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress. |
|
Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ el10 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 17957 |
|
This pull request has merge conflicts. Dear author, please fix the conflicts and sync your branch with the base branch. |
|
@blueorangutan package |
|
@DaanHoogland @weizhouapache @sureshanaparti can we run the CI here one last time? |
|
@Pearl1594 can we run the CI here? Thanks. |
|
@blueorangutan test |
|
@Pearl1594 a [SL] Trillian-Jenkins test job (ol8 mgmt + kvm-ol8) has been kicked to run smoke tests |
|
[SF] Trillian test result (tid-16298) |
10 participants
Description
Currently, ACS provides a feature that enables a guest OS preference for a specific host, prioritizing VMs based on its OS. However, this functionality allows VMs with different OSes to be deployed in a host with a Guest OS defined, as expected as it is only a preference configuration; this is not always desired. For example, keeping proprietary OS in the same host could reduce licensing costs.
This PR tackles this scenario, allowing JavaScript rules, using the JS interpreter introduced in #5909, to direct VMs to specific hosts based on their OS. Different from the guest OS preference, these guest OS rules will be strict. This new feature added a new field,
Guest OS as JS rulein the host edit view to allow users the creation of these rules.Types of changes
Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity
Feature/Enhancement Scale
Screenshots (if appropriate):
How Has This Been Tested?
In a local lab with two hosts (
host-1andhost-2) I created the guest OS rulevmGuestOs.toLowerCase().indexOf("debian") != -1forhost-2, and deployed multiple VMs using templates and ISOs.host-2was filtered during the deployment.host-2and verified that it was not possible.host-1tohost-2and vice versa.How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?
I tried to deploy VMs in the same lab without the guest OS rules defined and validated that the deployment of VMs were being done as expected.