[CSTACKEX-328] QoS Support Part 2 by suryag1201 · Pull Request #121 · NetApp/cloudstack

suryag1201 · 2026-10-13T09:53:41Z

Description

Following changes are included:

1- Change Disk Offering
2- Accept Min as zero in create volume, resize volume and change disk offering for min iops field
3- Delete QoS
4- Create Volume from Snapshot with QoS

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?

1- Created a VM with root on AFF with custom IOPS - Success
2- Created a VM with root on FAS with custom IOPS with min 0 and max 1000 - Success
3- Created a VM with root on FAS with custom IOPS with min 100 and max 1000 - Throw error on UI, Expected Behaviour
4- Created a VM with root on AFF with Fix IOPS - Success
5- Created a VM with root on FAS with Fix IOPS with min 100 and max 1000 - Throw error on UI, Expected Behaviour

6- Created a volume with Custom IOPS on AFF with min 200 and max 400 and attache to VM- success
7- Created a volume with Custom IOPS on FAS with min 0 and max 400 and attache to VM - success
8- Created a Volume on FAS with Fix IOPS with min 100 and max 1000 - Throw error on UI, Expected Behaviour

9- Resize the Volume and change the QoS IOPS for AFF- Success
10- Resize the Volume and change the QoS IOPS for FAS with min 0 - Success
11- Resize the Volume and change the QoS IOPS for FAS with min 100 - Throw error on UI, Expected Behaviour

12- Change Disk Offering - Change from Custom to Fix on AFF - Success
13- Change Disk Offering - Change from Custom to Fix on FAS with min > 0 - Throw error on UI, Expected Behaviour
14- Change Disk Offering - Change from Fix to Custom on AFF - Success
15- Change Disk Offering - Change from Custom to Custom on FAS with min with 0 - Success

16- Delete VM - Delete QoS Policy - Success
17- Delete Volume - Delete QoS Policy - Success

18- Snapshot: Create a Snapshot of a volume which has QoS and created a volume from snapshot - success

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

sandeeplocharla

Please add 'info/debug' loggers everywhere. And add some testing done section and screenshots for the exception changes done?
Also, do update the feature severity and other details in the PR description.

Apart from these I'm good with the changes

sandeeplocharla · 2026-10-14T02:51:05Z

                        maxIops = 0L;
                    } else {
-                        if (minIops == null || minIops <= 0) {
+                        if (minIops == null || minIops < 0) {


Why do we want to allow 0 for minIops?

For FAS, we need to set 0 as a min IOPS
but UI is allowing this during VM create time but not volume create, resize and disk offering change time.

sandeeplocharla · 2026-10-14T02:51:46Z

          type: 'number',
          validator: async (rule, value) => {
-            if (value && (isNaN(value) || value <= 0)) {
+            if (value && (isNaN(value) || Number(value) < 0)) {


why do we need the typecasting here?

sandeeplocharla · 2026-10-14T02:54:10Z

        miniops: [{
          validator: async (rule, value) => {
-            if (value && (isNaN(value) || value <= 0)) {
+            if (value && (isNaN(value) || Number(value) < 0)) {


github-actions · 2026-10-14T18:16:42Z

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: `D` — Marginal

Metric	Value
Line coverage	24.86%
Branch coverage	19.03%

Grade Scale

Grade	Line Coverage	Meaning
🟢 A	≥ 80%	Excellent - this code sleeps well at night 😴
🟡 B	60-79%	Good - almost there, don't stop now 😉
🟠 C	40-59%	Acceptable - your code is wearing a seatbelt, but no airbags 😬
🔴 D	20-39%	Marginal - boldly shipping where no test has gone before 🖖
⛔ F	< 20%	Failing - tests? what tests? 🔥

Branch coverage is shown as a secondary signal. Grade is determined by line coverage.
View full Actions run

github-actions · 2026-10-14T20:42:40Z

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: `D` — Marginal

Metric	Value
Line coverage	24.86%
Branch coverage	19.02%

Grade Scale

Grade	Line Coverage	Meaning
🟢 A	≥ 80%	Excellent - this code sleeps well at night 😴
🟡 B	60-79%	Good - almost there, don't stop now 😉
🟠 C	40-59%	Acceptable - your code is wearing a seatbelt, but no airbags 😬
🔴 D	20-39%	Marginal - boldly shipping where no test has gone before 🖖
⛔ F	< 20%	Failing - tests? what tests? 🔥

Branch coverage is shown as a secondary signal. Grade is determined by line coverage.
View full Actions run

github-actions · 2026-10-14T21:53:46Z

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: `D` — Marginal

Metric	Value
Line coverage	24.86%
Branch coverage	19.03%

Grade Scale

Grade	Line Coverage	Meaning
🟢 A	≥ 80%	Excellent - this code sleeps well at night 😴
🟡 B	60-79%	Good - almost there, don't stop now 😉
🟠 C	40-59%	Acceptable - your code is wearing a seatbelt, but no airbags 😬
🔴 D	20-39%	Marginal - boldly shipping where no test has gone before 🖖
⛔ F	< 20%	Failing - tests? what tests? 🔥

Branch coverage is shown as a secondary signal. Grade is determined by line coverage.
View full Actions run

github-actions · 2026-10-15T09:46:37Z

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: `D` — Marginal

Metric	Value
Line coverage	24.86%
Branch coverage	19.02%

Grade Scale

Grade	Line Coverage	Meaning
🟢 A	≥ 80%	Excellent - this code sleeps well at night 😴
🟡 B	60-79%	Good - almost there, don't stop now 😉
🟠 C	40-59%	Acceptable - your code is wearing a seatbelt, but no airbags 😬
🔴 D	20-39%	Marginal - boldly shipping where no test has gone before 🖖
⛔ F	< 20%	Failing - tests? what tests? 🔥

Branch coverage is shown as a secondary signal. Grade is determined by line coverage.
View full Actions run

piyush5netapp · 2026-10-15T16:57:58Z

        }
-        if (min > 0 && max > 0 && min > max) {
-            throw new CloudRuntimeException("Minimum IOPS cannot be greater than maximum IOPS");
+        if (min > 0 && max > 0 && min >= max) {


why is this equal to restriction ? does ontap not allow this ? or for basic hygiene purpose ?

ontap allows but we keept this for basic hygiene purpose

piyush5netapp · 2026-10-15T17:02:40Z

-        return null;
+        if (cloudstackVolume == null || cloudstackVolume.getLun() == null
+                || cloudstackVolume.getLun().getUuid() == null) {
+            throw new CloudRuntimeException("Invalid iSCSI volume QoS update request");


I think this method is intended to update any attribute of lun not necessarily qos only, please remove the qos logger. I see the same in UnifiedNASStrategy also.

piyush5netapp · 2026-10-15T17:03:31Z

+            throw new CloudRuntimeException("Invalid iSCSI volume QoS update request");
+        }
+        Lun lunUpdate = new Lun();
+        lunUpdate.setQosPolicy(cloudstackVolume.getLun().getQosPolicy());


I think , qos update or other update should be a private mtethod and this method should be responsible to call ONTAP API for patch.

For file case, we have to make diff call to attach a QoS but for lun, we can pass in the same request also as ONTAP accepts that.
otherwise it will be 2 diff call on for ISCSI, 1st of create/clone and 2nd for attach

sandeeplocharla · 2026-10-16T01:28:59Z

        }

        StorageStrategy storageStrategy = OntapStorageUtils.getStrategyByStoragePoolDetails(details);
+        boolean iscsi = isIscsi(details);


poolProtocol already has the protocol, right? do we need this again?

we get the protocol info but we have to compare with NFS, ISCSI string so that we know this is ISCSI protocol,
So this method call is fine

sandeeplocharla · 2026-10-16T01:58:17Z

+    void testUpdateCloudStackVolume_InvalidRequest_ThrowsException() {
+        CloudRuntimeException ex = assertThrows(CloudRuntimeException.class,
+                () -> unifiedSANStrategy.updateCloudStackVolume(new CloudStackVolume()));
+        assertTrue(ex.getMessage().contains("Invalid iSCSI volume QoS update request"));


Did this test go through? The message content looks different from that in the implementation.

sandeeplocharla · 2026-10-16T02:01:25Z

        miniops: [{
          validator: async (rule, value) => {
-            if (value && (isNaN(value) || value <= 0)) {
+            if (value && (isNaN(value) || value < 0)) {


Can you add this change in other DiskOffering forms also?

bcz cloudstack does not support min as 0, so i have not included the disk offering and included the resize, create Volume screens only but this point is valid, we can check on this

…ate for min IOPS and delete QoS

github-actions · 2026-10-16T10:55:20Z

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: `D` — Marginal

Metric	Value
Line coverage	25.78%
Branch coverage	20.07%

Grade Scale

Grade	Line Coverage	Meaning
🟢 A	≥ 80%	Excellent - this code sleeps well at night 😴
🟡 B	60-79%	Good - almost there, don't stop now 😉
🟠 C	40-59%	Acceptable - your code is wearing a seatbelt, but no airbags 😬
🔴 D	20-39%	Marginal - boldly shipping where no test has gone before 🖖
⛔ F	< 20%	Failing - tests? what tests? 🔥

Branch coverage is shown as a secondary signal. Grade is determined by line coverage.
View full Actions run

sandeeplocharla

Let's discuss allowing minIops=0 in other disk offering forms next week.

suryag1201 requested review from piyush5netapp, rajiv-jain-netapp and sandeeplocharla as code owners October 13, 2026 09:53

sandeeplocharla reviewed Oct 14, 2026

View reviewed changes

suryag1201 force-pushed the feature/CSTACKEX-328 branch from 5fcdc44 to d402fb6 Compare October 15, 2026 08:58

piyush5netapp reviewed Oct 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

sandeeplocharla reviewed Oct 16, 2026

View reviewed changes

Gupta, Surya added 6 commits October 16, 2026 11:28

[CSTACKEX-328] Change Disk Offering, allow min as 0 during volume cre…

bdd9162

…ate for min IOPS and delete QoS

[CSTACKEX-328] Fix Issues

8f2175f

[CSTACKEX-328] Fix Build Issue

b12dc90

[CSTACKEX-328] Fix Review Comments

09bf05e

[CSTACKEX-328] Fix Build Issue

27e863e

[CSTACKEX-328] Resolve review comments

8a24278

suryag1201 force-pushed the feature/CSTACKEX-328 branch from 4baa76f to 8a24278 Compare October 16, 2026 05:59

[CSTACKEX-328] Fix build failure and resolve new comments

90e193a

sandeeplocharla approved these changes Oct 16, 2026

View reviewed changes

Conversation

suryag1201 commented Oct 13, 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!

sandeeplocharla left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 14, 2026

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: D — Marginal

Grade Scale

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 14, 2026

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: D — Marginal

Grade Scale

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 14, 2026

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: D — Marginal

Grade Scale

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 15, 2026

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: D — Marginal

Grade Scale

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 16, 2026

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: D — Marginal

Grade Scale

Uh oh!

sandeeplocharla left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

suryag1201 commented Oct 13, 2026 •

edited

Loading

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: `D` — Marginal

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: `D` — Marginal

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: `D` — Marginal

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: `D` — Marginal

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: `D` — Marginal