backup: remove the powered-off precondition for all backup providers by weizhouapache · Pull Request #14094 · apache/cloudstack

weizhouapache · 2026-09-09T07:56:25Z

Description

This check is not needed.

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
Test (unit or integration test code)

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

Major
Minor

Bug Severity

Screenshots (if appropriate):

How Has This Been Tested?

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

weizhouapache · 2026-09-09T07:59:54Z

This condition check was added in the KBOSS PR (#12758).

I’m not sure why it was added to the providers (excluding KBOSS). I assume this is a typo and that it should apply to KBOSS only.

Please correct me if I’m wrong. @JoaoJandre @winterhazel

codecov · 2026-09-09T08:06:31Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 3.52%. Comparing base (e0f3006) to head (b366a1e).

Additional details and impacted files

@@          Coverage Diff           @@
##            main   #14094   +/-   ##
======================================
  Coverage   3.52%    3.52%           
======================================
  Files        487      487           
  Lines      41930    41930           
  Branches    7932     7932           
======================================
  Hits        1479     1479           
  Misses     40236    40236           
  Partials     215      215

Flag	Coverage Δ
uitests	`3.52% <ø> (ø)`

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

Copilot

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

Updates the restore-volume workflow so the “VM must be powered off” precondition is enforced only for the KBOSS backup provider, allowing other providers (e.g., NAS) to restore/attach without requiring the VM to be powered off.

Changes:

Inverts the provider guard so the power-off check applies only when the backup offering provider is KBOSS.

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

weizhouapache · 2026-09-09T08:11:57Z

@blueorangutan package

blueorangutan · 2026-09-09T08:14:05Z

@weizhouapache 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.

blueorangutan · 2026-09-09T09:02:57Z

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ el10 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 19167

weizhouapache · 2026-09-09T09:07:55Z

@blueorangutan test

blueorangutan · 2026-09-09T09:10:05Z

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

JoaoJandre · 2026-09-09T11:52:38Z

This condition check was added in the KBOSS PR (#12758).

I’m not sure why it was added to the providers (excluding KBOSS). I assume this is a typo and that it should apply to KBOSS only.

Please correct me if I’m wrong. @JoaoJandre @winterhazel

This was my error when cherry-picking the changes to main. The original branch I was working on had #7221 applied, which introduced this check for all providers. I thought it was there for a reason for other providers, so I just added an exception for KBOSS.

You can just remove the condition as a whole. It does not make sense for KBOSS. I don't think the condition makes sense for any provider actually.

blueorangutan · 2026-09-10T03:04:51Z

[SF] Trillian test result (tid-16947)
Environment: kvm-ol8 (x2), zone: Advanced Networking with Mgmt server ol8
Total time taken: 60770 seconds
Marvin logs: https://github.com/blueorangutan/acs-prs/releases/download/trillian/pr14094-t16947-kvm-ol8.zip
Smoke tests completed. 156 look OK, 0 have errors, 0 did not run
Only failed and skipped tests results shown below:

Test	Result	Time (s)	Test File

weizhouapache · 2026-09-10T08:07:19Z

This condition check was added in the KBOSS PR (#12758).
I’m not sure why it was added to the providers (excluding KBOSS). I assume this is a typo and that it should apply to KBOSS only.
Please correct me if I’m wrong. @JoaoJandre @winterhazel

This was my error when cherry-picking the changes to main. The original branch I was working on had #7221 applied, which introduced this check for all providers. I thought it was there for a reason for other providers, so I just added an exception for KBOSS.

You can just remove the condition as a whole. It does not make sense for KBOSS. I don't think the condition makes sense for any provider actually.

@JoaoJandre
thanks for the information. I have updated the PR to remove the check as you suggested.

weizhouapache · 2026-09-10T08:08:36Z

@blueorangutan package

blueorangutan · 2026-09-10T08:10:05Z

@weizhouapache 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.

Copilot

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 1 out of 1 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

            throw new CloudRuntimeException("Failed to find Instance Backup Offering");
        }

-        if (!StringUtils.equals(KBOSS_BACKUP_PROVIDER, offering.getProvider()) && !VirtualMachine.PowerState.PowerOff.equals(vm.getPowerState())) {
-            throw new CloudRuntimeException(String.format("VM [%s] needs to be powered off to restore the volume [%s].", vm.getUuid(), backedUpVolumeUuid));
-        }
-
        BackupProvider backupProvider = getBackupProvider(offering.getProvider());
        VolumeVO backedUpVolume = volumeDao.findByUuidIncludingRemoved(backedUpVolumeUuid);
        Pair<HostVO, StoragePoolVO> restoreInfo;


Copilot AI lite review requested due to automatic review settings September 9, 2026 07:56

boring-cyborg Bot added the component:backup label Sep 9, 2026

weizhouapache mentioned this pull request Sep 9, 2026

Nas backup: Fix restore-and-attach of a backed up volume on NFS, Linstor and Ceph primary storages #14007

Merged

14 tasks

weizhouapache added this to the 24.0 milestone Sep 9, 2026

Copilot AI reviewed Sep 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

weizhouapache requested review from JoaoJandre, abh1sar and winterhazel September 9, 2026 08:36

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of weizhouapache September 9, 2026 08:56 View session

backup: remove the powered-off precondition for all backup providers

b366a1e

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings September 10, 2026 08:05

weizhouapache force-pushed the 24-fix-vm-powerstate-nas-backup branch from a23ef59 to b366a1e Compare September 10, 2026 08:05

weizhouapache changed the title ~~backup: skip the powered-off precondition for the NAS provider~~ backup: remove the powered-off precondition for all backup providers Sep 10, 2026

Copilot AI reviewed Sep 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Conversation

weizhouapache commented Sep 9, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description

Types of changes

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

Bug Severity

Screenshots (if appropriate):

How Has This Been Tested?

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

Uh oh!

weizhouapache commented Sep 9, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Sep 9, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

weizhouapache commented Sep 9, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Sep 9, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Sep 9, 2026

Uh oh!

weizhouapache commented Sep 9, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Sep 9, 2026

Uh oh!

JoaoJandre commented Sep 9, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Sep 10, 2026

Uh oh!

weizhouapache commented Sep 10, 2026

Uh oh!

weizhouapache commented Sep 10, 2026

Uh oh!

blueorangutan commented Sep 10, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

weizhouapache commented Sep 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

weizhouapache commented Sep 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Sep 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading